
Qass £ Mo\ . 

Book . U,^ ^ 



58th Congress, | SENATE. J Document 

1st Sessian. j | No. 18. 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 



In the Senate of the United States, 

November 24, 1903. 
Ordered, That the circular, Mr. Black (Secretary of State) to all 
the ministers of the United States, dated Washiugtoij, February 28, 
1861, and tlie circular, Mr. Seward (Secretary of State) to all the 
ministers of the United States, dated Washington, March 9, 1861, 
being jmges 31 to 33, inclusive. Volume 1, Senate Documents, Thirty- 
seventh Congress, second session, and all the correspondence in the 
same document under the heading "Great Britain," being pages 71 
to 181, inclusive, be printed as a document for the use of the Senate. 
Attest: 

Charles G. Bennett, 

Secretarij. 



Mr. Black {Secretary of State) to all the ministers of the United States. 

circular. 

Department of State, 
Washington, February 28, 1861. 

Sir: You are, of course, aware that the election of last November 
resulted in the choice of ]\[r. Abraham Lincoln; that he was the can- 
didate of the Republican or anti-slavery party; that the preceding 
discussion had been confined almost entirely to topics connected 
directly or indirectly with the subject of negro slaveiy; that every 
northern State cast its whole electoral vote (except three in New .Jer- 
sey) for Mr. Lincoln, while in the whole south the popular sentiment 
against hiju was almost absolutely universal. Some of the southern 
States, immediately after the election, took measures for separating 
themselves from the Union, and others soon followed their example. 
Conventions have been called in South Carolina, (Georgia, Florida, 
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and those conventions, 
in all except the last-named State, have passed ordinances declaring 
their secession from the federal government. A congress, composed 
of representatives from the six first-named States, has been assem- 
bled for some time at Montgomer^^ Ala. By this body a provisional 
constitution has ])een framed for what it styles the "Confederated 
States of America." 

It is not improl)able that persons claiming to represent the States 
which have tlius attempted to throw off their federal obligations will 
seek a recognition of their independence by the Emperor of Russia. 
In the event of such an effort being made, j'ou are expected by the Presi- 
dent to use such means as may in j^our judgment be proper and neces- 
sary to prevent its success. '. V^ '>"",■ ' ' ' 



2 NEUTRALITY OF GEEAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

The reasons set forth in the President's message at the opening of 
the present session of Congress, in support of liis opinion that the 
States have no constitutional power to secede from the Union, are still 
unanswered, and are believed to be unanswerable. The grounds upon 
which they have attempted to justify the revolutionary act of severing 
the bonds which connect them with their sister States are regarded as 
wholly insufficient. This government has not relinquished its con- 
stitutional jurisdiction within the territorj^ of those States, and does 
not desire to do so. 

It must be very evident that it is the right of this government to 
ask of all foreign powers that the latter shall take no ■steps which may 
tend to encourage the revolutionary^ movement of the seceding States, 
or increase the danger of disaffection in those which still remain loyal. 
The President feels assured that the government of the Emperor will 
not do anything in these affairs inconsistent with the friendship which 
this Government has always heretofore exj)erienced f I'om him and his 
ancestors. If the independence of the " Confederated States " should 
be acknowledged by the great powers of Euroj)e it would tend to dis- 
turb the friendly relations, diplomatic and commercial, now existing 
between those powers and the United States. All these are conse- 
quences which the court of the Emperor will not fail to see are adverse 
to the interests of Russia as well as to those of this country. 

Your particular knowledge of our political institutions will enable 
you to explain satisfactorily the causes of our present domestic troubles, 
and the grounds of the hope still entertained that entire harmony will 
soon be restored. 

I am, sir, respectf ullj^ your obedient servant, 

J. S. BLACK. 

John Appleton, Esq., dtc, &c., &c. 

The same, nitdatis mutandis, to W. Preston, Esq., Madrid ; E. G. Fair, 
Esq., Brussels; Theo. S. Fay, Esq., Berne; Jos. A. Wright, Esq., 
Berlin; J. G. Jones, Esq., Vienna; J. Williams, Esq., Constanti- 
nople; Geo. M. Dallas, Esq., London; Ch as. J. Faulkner, Esq., 
Paris; Henry C. Murphy, Esq., Hague. 



Mr. Seiuard {Secretary of State) to atl the in in isters of the United States. 

circular. 

Department of State, 

Washington, March 9, 1861. 

Sir: My predecessor, in his despatch number 10, addressed to you on 
the 28th of February last, instructed you to use all proper and neces- 
sary measures to prevent the success of efforts wliich may be made by 
persons claiming to represent those States of this Union in whose 
name a provisional government has been announced to procure a 
recognition of their indei^endence by the government of Sj)ain. 

I am now instructed by the President of the United States to inforni 
you that, having assumed the administration of the government in 
pursuance of an unquestioned election and of the directions of the 
Constitution, he renews the injunction which I have mentioned, and 
relies upon the exercise of the greatest possible diligence and fidelity 
on your part to counteract and prevent the designs of those who would 
in veke. foreign intervention to embarrass or overthrow the republic. 

*' ""''''^^'" APR 2 1904 

**: '; *:;'^ ^ i . D.ofD, 



ISTEUTKALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 8 

When you reflect on the novelty of snch designs, their unpatriotic 
and revolutionary character, and the long train of evils which must 
follow directly or conseciuentially from even their partial or temporary 
success, the President feels assured that you will justly aiipreciate and 
cordially approve the caution which pronij)ts this communication. 

I transmit herewith a copy of the address pronounced by the Presi- 
dent on taking the constitutional oath of office. It sets forth clearl}- 
the errors of the misguided partisans who are seeking to dismember 
the Union, the grounds on which the conduct of those partisans is 
disallowed, and also the general policy which the government Avill 
pursue with a view to the preservation of domestic peace and order, 
and the maintenance and preservation of the federal Union. 

You will lose no time in submitting this address to the Sijanish 
minister for foreign affairs, and in assuring him that the President of 
the United States entertains a full confidence in the speedy restora- 
tion of the harmony and unity of the government by a firm, yet just 
and liberal bearing, cooperating with the deliberate and loyal action 
of the American people. 

You will truthf ullj^ urge u^ion the Spanish government the considera- 
tion that the present disturbances have had their origin only in popular 
passions, excited under novel circumstances of verj' transient char- 
acter, and that while not one person of well-balanced mind has 
attempted to show that dismemberment of the Union would be perma- 
nently conducive to the safety and welfare of even his own State or 
section, much less of all the States and sections of our country, the 
people themselves still retain and cherish a profound confidence in 
our hapijy Constitution, together with a veneration and affection for 
it such as no other form of government ever received at the hands of 
those for whom it was established. 

We feel free to assume that it is the general conviction of men, not 
only here but in all other countries, that this federal Union affords a 
better sj^stem than any other that could be contrived to assure the 
safety, the peace, the prosf>erity, the welfare, and the happiness of 
all the States of which it is composed. The position of these States, 
and their mining, agricultural, manufacturing, commercial, political, 
and social relations and influences seem to make it permanently the 
interest of all other nations that our present political system shall be 
unchanged and undisturbed. Any advantage that any foreign nation 
might derive from a connexion that it might form with any dissatis- 
fied or discontented x^ortion. State, or section, even if not altogether 
illusory, would be epJiemeral, and would be overbalanced by the evils 
it would suffer from a disseverance of the whole Union, whose mani- 
fest policy it must be hereafter, as it has always been heretofore, to 
maintain peace, liberal commerce, and cordial amity with all other 
nations, and to favor the establishment of well-ordered government 
over the whole American continent. 

Nor do we think we exaggerate our national importance when we 
claim that any political disaster that should befall us and introduce 
discord or anarchy among the States that have so long constituted 
one great pacific, prosperous nation under a form of government which 
has approved itself to the respect and confidence of mankind might 
tend by its influence to disturb and unsettle the existing sj'stems of 
government in other parts of the world and arrest that progress of 
improvement and civilization which marks the era in which we live. 

The United States have had too many assurances and manifesta- 
tions of the friendship and good will of her Catholic Majesty to enter 



4 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

tain anj^ donbt that tliese considerations and sncli otliers as your own 
large experience of the working of our federal system will suggest will 
have their just influence with her and will prevent her Majesty's gov- 
ernment from yielding to solicitations to intervene in an^'^ unfriendly 
way in the domestic concerns of our country. The President regrets 
that the events going on here may be productive of some possible incon- 
venience to the people and subjects of Spain; but he is determined 
that those inconveniences shall be made as light and as transient as 
possible, and, so far as it may rest with him, that all strangers who 
may suffer any injury from them shall be ampl}^ indemnified. The 
President expects that you will be prompt in transmitting to this 
department any information you may receive on the subject of the 
attempts which have suggested this communication. 
I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM IL SEWARD. 
W. Preston, Esq., Madrid. 

The same, nintafis jjiufandis, to E. G. Fair, Esq., Brussels; Theo. 
S. Fay, Esq., Jierne; Jos. A. AVright, Esq., Berlin; J. G. Jones, Esq., 
Vienna; J. Williams, Esq., Constantinople; Geo. M. Dallas, Esq., 
London; Chas. J. Faulkner, Esq., Paris; John Appleton, Esq., 
St. Petersburg; Henry C. Murphy, Esq., Hague. 



3fr. Seward to ministers of the United States in Cireat Britain., France., 
Russia, Prussia, Austria, Belgium, Italy, and Denmark. 

circular. 

Department of State, 

JVasJiinyton, April 2 J^, 1861. 

Sir: The advocates of benevolence and the believers in human 
progress, encouraged hy the slow though marked meliorations of the 
barbarities of war which have obtained in modern times, have been, 
as you are well aware, recently engaged with much assiduity in 
endeavoring to effect some modifications of the law of nations in regard 
to the rights of neutrals in maritime war. In the spirit of these move- 
ments the President of the United States, in the year 1854, submitted 
to the several maritime nations two propositions, to which he solicited 
their assent as permanent principles of international law, which were 
as follows: 

1. Free ships make free goods. That is to say, that the effects or 
goods belonging to subjects or citizens of a power or State at Avar are 
free from capture or confiscation when found on board of neutral ves- 
sels, with the excei)tion of articles contraband of war. 

2. That the property of neutrals on board an enemy's vessel is not 
subject to confiscation unless the same be contraband of war. 

Several of the governments to which these propositions were sub- 
mitted expressed their willingness to accept them, while some others, 
which were in a state of war, intimated a desire to defer acting thereon 
until the return of peace should present what the}' thought would be 
a more auspicious season for such interesting negotiations. 

On the Kith of April, ISSO, a congiess was in session at Paris. It 
consisted of several maritime powers, represented by their plenipo- 
tentiaries, nameh'. Great Britain, Austria, France, Russia, Prussia, 



NEUTRALITY OF C4REAT BRITAIN IN THE (TVIL WAR. 5 

Sardinia, and Tnrkey. That congress having taken np the general 
subject to which allusion has already been made in this letter, on the 
day before mentioned came to an agreement, which they adopted in 
the form of a declaration, to the effect following, namely: 

1. Privateering is and remains abolished. 

2. The neutral Hag covers enemy's goods, with the exception of 
contraband of war. 

3. Neutral goods, with the exception of (contraband of war, are not 
liable to capture under enemy's flag. 

4. Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective — that is to 
say, maintained by forces sufficient really to prevent access to the 
coast of the enemy. 

The agreement pledged the parties constituting the congress to bring 
the declaration thus made to the knowledge of the States which had 
not been represented in that body, and to invite them to accede to it. 
The congress, however, at the same time insisted, in the first place, 
that the declaration should be binding only on the powers who were 
or should become parties to it as one whole and indivisible compact; 
and, secondly, that the parties who had agreed, and those who should 
afterwards accede to it, should, after the adoption of the same, enter 
into no arrangement on the application of maritime law in time of 
war without stipulating for a strict observance of the four points 
resolved by the declaration. 

The declaration which I have thus substantially recited of course 
prevented all the powers which became parties to it from accepting 
the two propositions which had been before submitted to the maritime 
nations by the President of the United States. 

The declaration was, in due time, submitted by the governments 
rei^resented in the congress at Paris to the government of the United 
States. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

No. 3.] Department of State, 

Wasliinuton, April 10, 1861. 

Sir: Although Great Britain and the United States possess adjacent 
dominions of large extent, and although they divide, not verj^ unequall}^ 
a considerable portion of the commerce of the world, yet there ai'e at 
present only two questions in debate between them. One of these 
concerns the line of boundary running through Puget's Sound, and 
involves the title to the island of San Juan. The other relates to a 
proposition for extinguishing the interest of the Hudson's Bay and 
Puget's Sound agricultural comx)anies in the Territory of Washing- 
ton. The discussion of these questions has hitherto been carried on 
here, and there is no necessity for removing it to London. It is expected 
to proceed amicably and result in satisfactory conclusions. It would 
seem, therefore, on first thouglit, that you would find nothing more to 
do in England than to observe and report current events, and to cul- 
tivate friendly sentiments there towards the United States. Never- 
theless, the peculiar condition of our country in the present juncture 
renders these duties a task of considerable delicacy. 

You will readily understand me as alluding to the attempts which 
are being made by a misguided portion of our fellow citizens to detach 
some of the States and to combine them in a new organization under 
the name of the Confederate States of America. Tlie agitators in this 



6 NEUTRALITY OF GEEAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

bad enterprise, justly estimating the influence of the European powers 
upon even American affairs, do not mistake in supposing that it would 
derive signal advantage from a recognition by any of those powers, 
and especially Gi'eat Britain. Your task, therefore, apparently so 
simple and easy, involves the responsibility of i^reventing the commis- 
sion of an act by the government of that country which would be 
fraught with disaster, perhaps ruin, to our own. 

It is by no means easj' to give you instructions. They must be based 
on a survey of the condition of the country, and include a statement 
of the policy of the government. The insurrectionary movement, 
though rapid in its progress, is slow in revealing its permanent char- 
acter. Only outlines of a policy can be drawn, which must largely 
depend on uncertain events. 

The presidential election took place on the Uth of November last. 
The canvass has been conducted in all the southern or slave. States in 
such a manner as to prevent a perfectly candi«l hearing there of the 
issue involved, and so all the parties existing there were surprised and 
disappointed in the marked result. That disappointment Avas quickly 
seized for desperate purposes by a class of persons until that time, 
powerless, who had long cherished a design to dismember the Union 
and build up a new confederac.y around the Gulf of Mexico. Ambi- 
tious leadei'S hurried the peoi)le forward, in a factious course, observ- 
ing conventional forms but violating altogether the deliberative spirit 
of their constitutions. When the new federal administration came in 
on the 4rtli of March last, it found itself confronte<l by an insurrec- 
tionary combination of seven States, practicing an insidious strategy 
to seduce eight other States into its councils. 

One needs to be as conversant with our federative system as perhaps 
onlj^ American publicists can be to understand how effectually, in the 
first instance, such a revolutionary movement must demoralize the 
general government. We are not onlj^ a nation, but Ave are States 
also. All public officers, as well as citizens, owe not only allegiance 
to the Union, but allegiance also to the States in which they reside. 
In tlie more discontented States the local magistrates and other offi- 
cers cast off at once their federal allegiance, and conventions were 
held which assumed to absolve their citizens from the same obligation. 
Even federal judges, marshals, clerks, and re Avenue officers resigned 
their trusts. Intimidation deterred loyal persons from accepting the 
offices thus rendered vacant. So the most important faculties of the 
federal government in those States abruptlj' ceased. The i-esigning 
federal agents, if the expression may be used, attorned to the rcAolu- 
tionary authorities and delivered up to them public funds and other 
l^roperty and possessions of large value. The federal goA^ernment had, 
through a long series of years, been engaged in building strong forti- 
fications, a navy-yard, arsenals, mints, treasuries, and other public 
edifices, not in any case for use against those States, but chiefly for 
their protection and convenience. These had been unsusi^ectingly left 
eitlier altogether or imijerfectly garrisoned or guarded, and they fell, 
with little resistance, into the hands of the revolutionary j)arty. A 
general officer of the army gaA'e up to them a large quantitj' of military 
stores and other pi-operty, disbanded the troops under his command, 
and sent them out of the territor}^ of the disaffected States. 

It may be stated, perhaps without giving just offence, that the most 
popular motive in these discontents Avas an apprehension of designs 
on the part of the incoming federal administration hostile to the insti- 
tution of domestic slaverA' in the States Avhere it is tolerated Ija^ the 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 7 

local constitutions and laws. That institution and the class wliich 
especially cherishes it are not confined to the States which have 
revolted, but they exist in the eight other so-called slave States; and 
these, for that reason, sympathize profoundly with the revolutionarj^ 
movement. Sympathies and apprehensions of this kind have, for an 
indefinite period, entered into the bases of political parties through- 
out the whole country, and thus considerable masses of persons, whose 
ultimate loyalty could not be doubted, were found, even in the free 
States, either justify- ing, excusing, or i^alliating the movement towards 
disunion in the seceding States. The party Avhich was dominant in 
the federal governmeut during the period of the last administration 
embraced, practically, and held in unreserved communion, all disun- 
ionists and sympathizers. It held the executive administration. The 
Secretaries of the Treasury, War, and the Interior were disunionists. 
The same party held a large majority of the Senate, and nearly equally 
divided the House of Representatives. Disaffection lurked, if it did 
not openly avow itself, in every department and in every bureau, in 
every regiment and in every ship-of-war; in the post-office and in the 
custom-house, and in everj^ legation and consulate from London to 
Calcutta. Of four thousand four hundred and seventy officers in the 
l^ublic service, civil and military, two thousand one hundred and 
fifty-four were representatives of States where the revolutionary move- 
ment was openly advocated and urged, even if not actually organized. 

Our system being so comi^letely fedei'ative and representative, no 
jjrovision had ever been made, perhaps none ever could have been 
made, to anticipate this strange and unprecedented disturbance. The 
people were shocked by successive and astounding developments of 
what the statute book distinctly pronounced to be sedition and trea- 
son, but the magistracy was demoralized and the laws were jDowerless. 
By degrees, however, a better sentiment revealed itself. The execu- 
tive administration hesitatingly, in part, reformed itself. The capi- 
tal was garrisoned; the new President came in unresisted, and soon 
constituted a new and purely loyal administration. They found the 
disunionists perseveringly engaged in raising armies and laying sieges 
around national fortifications situate within the territory' of the disaf- 
fected States. The federal marine seemed to have been scattered 
everywhere except where its presence was necessary, and such of the 
militarj^ forces as were not in the remote States and Territories were 
held back from activity by vague and mysterious armistices which 
had been informally contracted by the late President, or under his 
authority, with a view to postpone conflict until impracticable conces- 
sions to disunion should be made by Congress, or at least until the 
waning term of his administration should reach its appointed end. 
Commissioners who had been sent by the new confederacy were 
already at the capital demanding recognition of its sovereignty and a 
partition of the national property and domain. The treasury, depleted 
by robbery and peculation, was exhausted, and the public credit was 
prostrate. 

It would be verjMinjust to the American peoi)le to suppose that thi« 
singular and unhappy condition of things indicated any extreme favor 
or toleration of the purpose of a permanent dissolution of the Union. 
On the contrary, disunion at the very first took on a specious form, 
and it afterwards made its way b3' ingenious and seductive devices. 
It inculcated that the Union is a pureh' voluntary connexion, founded 
on the revocable assent of t!ie several States; that secession, in the 
case of great popular discontent, would induce consultation and recon 



8 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

ciliatiou, and so that revolution, instead of being- war, is peace, and dis- 
union, instead of being dissolution, is union. Though the ordinances 
of secession in the seceding States were carried through impetuously, 
without deliberation, and even by (luestionable majorities, jet it was 
plausilily urged that the citizens who had remained loyal to the Union 
might wisely acquiesce, so as ultimateh^ to moderate and control the 
movement, and in any event that if war should ensue it would become 
a war of sections, and not a social war, of all others, and especially 
in those States, the foi-ni of war most seriously to be deprecated. It 
being assumed that peaceful separation is in harmonj' with the Con- 
stitution, it was urged as a consequence that coercion would, therefore, 
be unlawful and tyrannical; and this principle was even pushed so 
far as to nuike the defensive retaining b}' the federal government of 
its position within the limits of the seceding States, or where it might 
seem to overawe or intimidate them, an act of such forbidden coercion. 
Thus it happened that for a long time, and in verj' extensive districts 
eveu, fidelity to the Union manifested itself by demanding a surrender 
of its puwers and possessions, and compromises with or immunity 
towards those who wej-e engaged in overthrowing it by armed force. 
Disunion under these circumstances rapidly matured. On the other 
hand, the country was bewildered. For the moment even hnal citi- 
zens fell naturallj' into the error of inquiring liow the fearful state of 
things had come about, and who was responsible for it, thus inviting 
a continuance of the controversy out of which it had arisen, rather 
than rallying to the duty of arresting it. Disunion, sustained onl}' by 
passion, made haste to attain its end. Union, on the contrary, required 
time, because ir could only appeal to reason, and reason could not be 
heard until excitement should in some degree subside. Military spirit 
is an element always ready for revolution. It has a fuller develop- 
ment in the disaffected than in the loyal States. Thousands of men 
have already banded themselves as soldiers in the cause of disunion, 
while the defender^ of the Union, before resorting to arms, everywhere 
wait to make sure that it cannot be otherwise preserved. Even this 
cautious and pacific yet patriotic disposition has been misunderstood 
and perverted by faction to encourage disunion. 

I believe that I have thus presented the disunion movement dispas- 
sioiuitely and without misrei^resenting its proportions or its character. 

You will hrirdly be asked by i-esponsible statesmen abroad why has 
not the new administration already suppressed the revolution. Thirty- 
five days are a short period in which to repress, chiefly by moral 
means, a movement which is so active while di^-closing itself through- 
out an empire. 

You will not be expected to promulgate tliis history, or to commu- 
nicate it to the British government, but j^ou are entitled to the Presi- 
dent's views, which I have thus set forth in order to enable you to 
understand the policy which he proposes to pursue, and to conform 
your own action to it. 

The President neither looks for nor apprehends any actual and 
j)ermanent dismemberment of the American Union, especially by a 
line of latitude. The improvement of our many channels of inter- 
course, and the perfection of our scheme of internal exchanges, and 
the incorporation of both of them into a great system of foreign com- 
merce, concurring with the gradual abatement of the force of the 
onh^ existing cause of alienation, have carried us already beyond the 
danger of disunion in that form. The so-called Confederate States, 
therefore, in the opinion of the President, are attempting what will 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 9 

prove a physical impossibility. Necessarily they build the structure 
of their new oovernment upon the same principle by which they seek 
to desti-oy the Union, namely, the ri.s:ht of each individual member 
of the confederacy to withdraw from it at i^leasure and in peace. A 
government thus constituted could neither attain the consolidation 
necessary for stability, nor guaranty any engagements it might make 
Avith creditors or other nations. 

The movement, therefore, in the opinion of the President, tends 
directl}^ to anarchy in the seceding States, as similar movements in 
similar circuinstances have alread}' resulted in Spanish America, and 
especially in Mexico. He believes, nevertheless, that the citizens of 
those States, as well as the citizens of the other States, are too intelli- 
gent, considerate, and wise to follow the leaders to that disastrous 
end. For these reasons he would not be disposed to reject a cardinal 
dogma of theirs, namely, that the Federal Government could not 
reduce the seceding States to obedience by conquest, even although 
he w^ere disposed to question that proposition. But, in fact, the Presi- 
dent willingly accepts it as true. Only an imj)erial or despotic gov- 
ernment could subjugate thoroughly disaffected and insurrectionarj^ 
members of the State. This federal republican system of oiirs is of 
all forms of government the very one which is most unfitted for such 
a labor. Hai^pily, however, this is only an imaginary defect. The 
system has within itself adequate, peaceful, conservative, and recu- 
pei'ative forces. Firmness on the part of the Government in main- 
taining and preserving the public institutions and property, and in 
executing the laws where authority can be exercised without waging 
war, combined with such measures of justice, moderation, and for- 
bearance as will disarm reasoning opposition, will be sufficient to 
secure the public safety until returning reflection, concurring with 
the fearful experience of social evils, the inevitable fruits of faction, 
shall bring the recusant members cheerfully back into the family, 
which, after all, must prove theii- best and happiest, as it undeniably 
is their most natural home. The C(»nstitution of the United States 
provides for that return bj^ authorizing Congress, on application to 
be made by a certain majority of the States, to assemble a national 
convention, in which the organic law can, if it be needful, be revised 
so as to remove all real ol)staclesto a i-eunion. so suitable to the habits 
of the people, and so eminently conducive to the common safety and 
welfare. 

Keeping that remedy steadily in view, the President, on ■ the one 
hand, will not suffer the federal authority to fall into abej^ance, nor 
will he, on the other, aggravate existing evils by attemj)ts at coercion 
which must assume the form of direct war against anj^ of the revolu- 
tionary' States. If, while he is pursuing this course, commended as 
it is by prudence as well as patriotism, the scourge of civil war for 
the first time in our history must fall upon our country during the 
term of his administration, that calamity will then have come thi-ough 
the agency, not of the government, but of those who shall have chosen 
to be its armed, open, and irreconcilable enemies; and he will not 
suffer himself to doubt that when the value of the imperilled Union 
shall be brought in tluit fearful manner home to the business and the 
bosoms of the American people, the}' will, with an unanimity that 
shall vindicate their wisdom and their virtue, rise up and save it. 

It does not, however, at all surprise the President that the confidence 
in the stability of the Union, which has been heretofore so universally 
entertained, has been violentlj'^ shocked both at home and abroad. 



10 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

Surprise and fear invariably go together. The period of four months 
which intervened between the election which designated the head of 
the new administration and its advent, as has already been shown, 
assumed the character of an interregnum, in which not only were the 
powers of the government paralyzed, but even its resources seemed to 
disaj^pear and be forgotten. 

Nevertheless, all the world know what are the resources of the 
United States, and that they are practicallj' unencumbered as well as 
inexhaustible. It would be easy, if it would not seem invidious, to 
show that whatever may be the full develo]3ment of the disunion 
movement, those resources will not be seriously diminished, and that 
the revenues and credit of the Union, unsurpassed in any other coun- 
try, are adequate to every emergency that can occur in our own. Nor 
will the political commotions which await us sensibl}^ disturb the con- 
fidence of the j)eople In the stabilitj^ of the government. It has been 
necessary for us to learn, perhaps the instruction has not come too 
soon, that vicissitudes are incident to our system and our country, as 
they are to all others. The panic which that instruction naturallj' 
l^roduced is nearly past. What lias hitherto been most needful for 
the reinvigoration of authorit}" is already occurring. The aiders, abet- 
tors, and sympathizers with disunion, partly ])y their own choice and 
partly through the exercise of the pul)lic will, are falling out fi'omthe 
civil departments of the government as well as from the army and the 
navy. The national legislature will no longer be a distracted council. 
Our representatives in foreign courts and ports will henceforth speak 
onl}' the language of loyalty to their country, and of confidence in its 
institutions and its destiny. 

It is much to be dej)lored that our representatives are to meet abroad 
agents of disunion, seeking foreign aid to effect what, unaided, is 
alreadj^ seen to be clesperate. You need not be informed that their 
success in Great Britain would probablj^ render their success easy else- 
where. The President does not doubt that you fully appreciate the 
responsibility of j'our mission. An honored ancestor of yours was the 
first to represent your whole country, after its independence was estab- 
lished, at the same court to which j^ou now are accredited. The Presi- 
dent feels assured that it will happen through no want of loyalty or of 
diligence on j^jur part if you are to be the last to discharge that trust. 
You will have this great advantage, that from the hour when that 
country, so dear to us all, first challenged the notice of nations, until 
now, it has continually grown in their sympathy" and reverence. 

Before considerijig the arguments 3'ou are to use, it is important to 
indicate those which you are not to employ in executing that mission: 

First. The President has noticed, as the whole American people 
have, with much emotion, the expressions of good will and friendship 
toward the United States, and of concern for their present eml>arrass- 
ments, which have been made on apt occasions by Her Majesty and 
her ministers. You will make due acknowledgment for these mani- 
festations, but at the same time you will not rely on any mere sympa- 
thies or national kindness. You will make no admissions of weakness 
in our Constitution, or of apprehensi<m on the part of the government. 
You will rather prove, as jon easily can, by comparing the history of 
our countr}' with that of other states, that its Constitution and gov- 
ernment are reall}^ the strongest and sui-est which liave ever been 
erected for the safety of uny people. You will in no case listen to 
any suggestions of compromise by .this government, under foreign 
auspices, with its discontented citizens. If, as the President does not 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 11 

at all apprehend, j^ou shall iinhappilj' find Her Majesty's government 
tolerating the application of the so-called seceding States, or wavering 
abont it, yon will not leave tlieni to snppose for a moment that they 
can grant that apiilication and remain the friends of the United 
States. Yon may even assure them promptly in that case that if they 
determine to i-ecognize, they may at the same time prepare to enter 
into alliance with the enemies of this republic. You alone will repre- 
sent your country at London, and j^ou will represent the whole of it 
there. Wlien j^ou are asked to divide that dutj^ with others, diplo- 
matic relations between the government of Great Britain and this 
government will be suspended, and will remain so until it shall be 
seen which of tiie two is most strongly entrenched in the confidence 
of their respective nations and of mankind. 

You will not be allowed, however, even if you were disposed, as the 
President is sure you will not be, to rest your opposition to the appli- 
cation of the Confederate States on the ground of any favor this 
administration, or the party whicli chiefly called it into existence, pro- 
poses to show to Great Britain, or claims that Great Britain ought to 
show to them. You will not consent to draw into debate before the 
British government any opposing moral principles which may be sup- 
posed to lie at the foundation of the controversy between those States 
and the federal Union. 

You will indulge in no expressions of harshness or disrespect, or 
even imijatience, concerning the seceding States, their agents, or 
their people. Biit you will, on the contrary, all the while remember 
that those States are now, as they always heretofore have been, and, 
notwithstanding their temporary self-delusion, they must always 
continue to be, equal and honored members of this federal Union, 
and that their citizens throughout all j)olitical misunderstandings and 
alienations siill are and always must be our kindred and countrymen. 
In short, all your arguments must belong to one of three classes, 
namelj^: First, arguments drawn from the principles of public law 
and natural justice, which regulate the intercourse of equal States. 
Secondly. Arguments which concern equally the honor, welfare, and 
happiness of the discontented States, and the honor, welfare, and 
happiness of the whole Union. Thirdly. Arguments which are equally 
conservative of the rights and interests, and even sentiments of the 
United States, and just in their bearing upon the rights, interests, 
and sentiments of Great Britain and all other nations. 

We freely admit that a nation may, and even ought, to recognize 
a new State which has absolutely and beyond question effected its 
independence, and permanently established its sovereignty; and that 
a recognition in such a case affords no just cause of offense to the 
government of the country from which the new State has so detached 
itself. On the other hand, we insist that a nation that recognizes a 
revolutionarj^ State, with a view to aid its effecting its sovereignty 
and independence, commits a great wrong against the nation whose 
integrity is thus invaded, and makes itself responsible for a just and 
ample redress. 

I will not stop to inquire whether it ma.y not sometimes happen that 
an imperial government or even a federative one may not so opp' ess or 
aggrieve its subjects in a province or in a State as to justify inter- 
vention on the plea of humanity. Her Majestj''s government, how- 
ever, will not make a pretence that the present is such a case. The 
United States have existed under their present form of government 
seventy and more jears, and during all that time not one human life 



12 NEUTRALITY OF GEEAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

has been taken in forfeiture for resistance to tlieir authority. It must 
be the verdict of history that no government so just, so equal, and so 
humane, has ever elsewhere existed. Ev(m the present disunion 
movement is confessedly without any better cause than an apprehen- 
sion of dangers which, from the very nature of the government, are 
impossible; and speculations of aggressions, which those who know 
the physical and social arrangements of this continent must see at 
once are fallacious and chimerical. 

The disunionists will, I am sure, take no such ground. They will 
a,ppeal, not to the justice, or to the magnanimity, but to the cupidity 
and caprice of Great Britain. 

It cannot need many words to show that even in that form their 
appeal ought to be promptly dismissed. I am aware that the revenue 
law latelj^ passed bj^ Congress is vehementl}- denounced in Great Bi-it- 
ain. It might be enough to say on that subject that as the United 
States and Great Britain are equals in dignitj^, and not unequal in 
astuteness in the science and practice of political econom3^ the former 
have good right to regard only their own convenience, and consult 
their own judgment in framing their revenue laws. But there are 
some points in this connection which you may make without com- 
promising the self-respect of this government. 

In the circumstances of the present case, it is clear that a recogni- 
tion of the so-called Confederate nations must be deemed equivalent 
to a delil)erate resolution by her Majesty's government that this 
American Union, which has so long constituted a sovereign nation, 
shall be now ijermanently dissolved, and cease to exist forever. The 
excuse for this resolution, fraught, if effectual, with fearful and endur- 
ing consequences, is a change in its revenue laws — a change which, 
because of its very nature, as well as by reason of the ever-changing 
course of public sentiment, must necessarily be temporary and 
ephemeral. British censors tell us that the new tariff' is unwise for 
ourselves. If so, it will speedilj^ be repealed. They say it is illiberal 
and injurious to Great Britain. It can not be so upon her principles 
without being also injurious to ourselv^es, and in that case it will be 
promptly repealed. Besides, there certainly are other and more 
friendly remedies for foreign legislation that is injurious without pre- 
meditated purpose of injury, which a magnanimous government will 
try before it deliberately seeks the destruction of the offended nation. 

The application of the so-called C'onf ederate States, in the aspect now 
under consideration, assumes that they are offering, or will offer, niore 
liberal commercial facilities than the United States can or will be dis- 
posed to concede. Would it not be wise for Great Britain to wait 
until those liberal facilities shall be definitely fixed and offered by the 
Confederate States, and then to wait further and see w^hether the 
United States may not accord facilities not less desirable':* 

The union of these States seventy years ago established perfectly 
free trade between the several States, and this, in effect, is free trade 
throughout the largest inhabitable part of North America. During 
all that time, with occasional and very brief intervals, not affecting 
the result, we have been constantly increasing in commercial liberal- 
ity towards foreign nations. We have made that advance necessarily, 
because, with increasing liberality, we have at the same time, owing 
to controlling causes, continually augmented our revenues and 
increased our own productions. The sagacity of the British govern- 
ment cannot allow it to doubt that our natural course hereafter in 
this respect must continue to be the same as heretofore. 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 13 

The same sagacity may be trusted to decide, first, wliether tlie 
so-called Confederate States, on the emergency of a militar}^ revolu- 
tion, and liaving no other sources of revenue than duties on imports 
and exports levied within the few ports they can command without a 
naval force, are likely to be able to persevere in practicing the com- 
mercial liberality they proffer as an equivalent for recognition. Man- 
ifestly, moreover, the negotiation which they iiropose to open with 
Great Britain implies that peace is to be preserved while the new 
commerce goes on. The sagacity of her Majesty's govei-nment may 
be trusted to consider whether that new government is likely to be 
inaugurated without war, and whether the commerce of Great Britain 
with this country would be likel}' to be improved by flagrant war 
between the southern and northern States. 

Again, even a very limited examination of commercial statistics 
will be sufficient to sliow that while the staples of the disaffected 
States do, indeed, as they claim, constitute a very important portion 
of the exports of the United States to European countries, a very large 
portion of the products and fabrics of other regions consumed in those 
States are derived, and must continue to be derived, not from Europe, 
but fi'om the Northern States, wliile the chief consumption of Euro- 
pean productions and fabrics imported into the United States takes 
place in tliese same States. Great Britain may, if her government 
thinks best, by modifying her navigation laws trj' to change these 
great features of American commerce, but it will require sometliing 
more than acts of the British Parliament and of the proposed revolu- 
tionary Congress to modify a commerce that takes its composite char- 
acter from all the various soils and climates of a continent, as well as 
from the diversified institutions, customs, and dispositions of the many 
communities which inhabit it. 

Once more: All the speculations which assume that the revenue 
law recently passed by Congress will diminish the consumption of 
foreign fabrics and productions in the United States are entirely erro- 
neous. The American people are active, industrious, inventive, and 
energetic, but they are not penurious or sordid. They are engaged 
with wonderful effect in developing the mineral, forest, agricultural, 
and pastoral resources of a vast and practically' new continent. 
Their wealth, individual as well as public, increases every day in a 
general sense, irrespective of the revenue laws of the United States, 
and every day also the habit of liberal — not to say pi'ofuse — expendi- 
ture grows upon them. There are changes in the nature and character 
of imported productions which they consume, but practically no 
decline in the quantity and value of imports. 

It remains to bring out distinctly a consideration to which I have 
already advei-ted. Great Britain has within the last forty-five years 
changed character and purpose. She has become a power for produc- 
tion, rather than a power for destruction. She is committed, as it 
seems to us, to a i>olicy of industry, not of ambition; a policy of peace, 
not of war. One has onl}' to compare her present domestic condition 
with that of any former period to see that this new career on which she 
has entered is as wise as it is humane and beneficent. Her success in 
this career requires peace throughout the civilized world, and nowhere 
so much as on this continent. Recognition by her of the so-called 
Confederate States would be intervention and war in this countr}'. 
Permanent dismemberment of the American Union in consequence of 
that intervention would be perpetual war — civil war. The new con- 
federacy which in that case Great Britain would have aided into exist- 



l-i NEUTRALITY OF GKEAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

ence must, like any other new state, seek to expand itself northward, 
westward, and southward. What part of this continent or of the adja- 
cent islands would be expected to remain in peace? 

The President would regard it as inconsistent with his habitually 
high consideration for the government and people of Gi-eat Britain to 
allow me to dwell longer on the merelj^ commercial aspects of the ques- 
tion under discussion. Indeed he will not for a moment believe that, 
upon consideration of merelj^ financial gain, that government could be 
induced to lend its aid to a revolution designed to overthrow the insti- 
tutions of this country, and involving ultimately the destruction of 
the liberties of the American people. 

To recognize the independence of a new state, and so favor, possiblj' 
determine, its admission into the family of nations, is the highest pos- 
sible exercise of sovereign power, because it affects in anj^ case the 
welfare of two nations, and often the peace of the world. In the 
European system this power is now seldom attempted to be exercised 
without invoking a consultation or congress of nations. That system 
has not been extended to this continent. But there is even a greater 
necessity for prudence in such cases in regard to American States than 
in regard to the nations of Europe. A revolutionarj^ change of dynastj^ 
or even a disorganization and recombiiiation of one or manj^ States, 
therefore, do not long or deeply affect the general interests of society, 
because the ways of trade and habits of society remain the same. 
But a radical change effected in the political combinations existing on 
the continent, followed, as it probably would be, by moral convulsions 
of incalculable magnitude, would threaten the stability of society 
throughout the world. 

Humanit,y has indeed little to hope for if it shall, in this age of high 
improvement, be decided without a trial that the principle of inter- 
national taw which regards nations as moral persons, bound so to act 
as to do to each other the least injury and the most good, is merely 
an abstraction too refined to be reduced into practice by the enlight- 
ened nations of Western Europe. Seen in the light of this principle, 
the several nations of the earth constitute one great federal republic. 
When one of them casts its suffrages for the admission of a new mem- 
ber into that republic, it ought to act under a profound sense of moral 
obligation, and be governed by considerations as pure, disinterested, 
and elevated as the general interest of society and the advancement 
of human nature. 

The British empire itself is an aggregation of divers communities 
which cover a large portion of the earth and embrace one-fifth of its 
entire i:)opnlation. Some, at least, of these communities are held to 
their places in that sj^stem bj^ bonds as fragile as the obligations of 
our own federal Union. The strain will some time come which is to 
try the strength of these bonds, though it will be of a different kind 
fi'om that which is trying the cords of our confederation. Would it 
be wise for her Majesty's government, on this occasion, to set a dan- 
gerous precedent, or provoke retaliation? If Scotland and Ireland are 
at last reduced to quiet contentment, has Great Britain no depend- 
ency, island, or province left exposed along the whole circle of her 
emjDire, from Gibraltar through the West Indies and CVmada till it 
begins again on the southern extremity of Africa? 

The President will not dwell on the pleasing recollection that Great 
Britain, not yet a year ago, manifested by marked attention to the 
United States her desire for a cordial reunion which, all ancient preju- 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 15 

dices and passions being buried, should be a pledge of mutual inter- 
est and sympathy forever thereafter. The United States are not 
indifferent to the circumstances of common descent, language, cus- 
toms, sentiments, and religion, which recommend a closer sympathy 
between themselves and Great Britain than either might expect in its 
intercourse with any other nation. The United States are one of 
many nations which have sprung from Great Britain herself. Other 
such nations are rising up in various parts of the globe. It has been 
thought by many who have studied the philosophy of modern history 
profoundly that the success of the nations thus deriving their descent 
from Great Britain might, through manj' ages, reflect back upon that 
kingdom the proper glories of its own great career. The government 
and people of Great Britain may mistake their commercial interests, 
but they cannot become either unnatural or indifferent to the impulses 
of an undying ambition to be distinguished as the leaders of the 
nations in the wa3's of civilization and liamanity. 

I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 



3fr. Dallas fo Mr. Seward. 

[Extracts.] 

No. 325.] Legation of the United States, 

London, March 22, 1861. 

Sir : I have recently had the honor to receive your despatches, num- 
bered 304 and 305. 

Having noticed that the despatch No. 304, bearing date the 28th of 
February, respecting the newly formed confederac}^ of seceded States, 
Avas in harmony as well with the views enunciated in the inaugural 
address on the 4th instant as with those of the presidential message 
of December last, I lost no time in seeking an interview with her 
Majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, and in stating 
the opposition which I am in that despatch instructed to make to an\' 
recognition by the Queen of England of the independence of those 
who have thus attempted to throw off their federal obligations. 

The necessary opportunity Avas accorded to me on the day after the 
receipt of the despatch, yesterday. Lord John Russell then listened 
to the communication as one he expected; though on its purport the 
British cabinet, if they liad interchanged opinions at all, had reached 
no definite conclusion as to their proper course of action. 

I took the liberty to inquire whether any one professing to represent 
the southern republic had approaclied this government on the subject, 
and his lordsliip, with prompt frankness, assured me that he felt no 
hesitation in answering in the negative, adding that he had been 
shown a private letter from which he inferred that accredited minis- 
ters or commissioners, authorized to negotiate for the recognition, 
would shortly be sent by the provisional autlioi-ities of Montgomerj'. 
I have the honor to be, sir, your most obedient servant, 

G. M. DALLAS. 

The Lion, the Secretary of State, Washimjton. 



16 NEUTKALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 
Jfr. Dallas to Mr. Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No. 320.] Legation of the United States, 

London, AprdS, 1861. 

Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of youi' despatches, 
uumbered 306 and 307, and a circular, dated the 9th of March, 1861, 
respecting the probable efforts of persons claiming to represent a 
southern provisional government to obtain the recognition of their 
independence by Great Britain. 

Respecting this last-mentioned subject, I addressed yesterda}", as 
soon as your instruction was received, a note to her Majesty's j)rinci- 
pal secretar}^ of state for foreign affairs requesting an early interview, 
deeming it not impossible that I might be enabled to send you some- 
thing b}' this steamer. M}^ note, however, is yet unanswered, owing, 
I iDresume, to the absence of Lord John Russell from town. The 
commissioners from the new confederac}^ have not yet arrived, and 
may not arrive until late in this month. You were apprised by my 
despatch of the 22d ultimo (No. 325) that, on the receipt from the 
department of j-our predecessor's No. 304, I had lost no time in plac- 
ing the matter properly before this government. Your own views 
will be communicated in greater fullness when the opportunity is 
allowed me. 

I have the honor to be, sir, j^our obedient servant, 

G. M. DALLAS. 
The Hon. William IL Seward, Secretary of State. 



Mr. Dalla.s to Mr. Setrard. 

No. 330.] Le(4ation of the United States, 

London, Aprd 9, 1861. 

Sir: Referring to ray dispatch of the 5th instant (No. 329), I have 
now the honor to state that Lord .Tolm Russell accorded me an inter- 
view at the foreign office yesteixlay, and enabled me to submit fully 
to his consideration the representations of your circular with the 
inaugural address of the President. 

We conversed for some time on the question of recognizing the 
alleged southern confederacj^ of which no representative has yet 
appeared, and may not appear until the end of the month. 

His lordship assured me with great earnestness that there was not 
the slightest disposition in the British government to grasp at any 
advantage which might be supposed to arise from the unpleasant 
domestic differences in the United States, but, on the contrary, that 
they would be highly gratified if those differences were adjusted and 
tlie I'nion restored to its former unbroken i)osition. 

I pressed upon him, in concluding, if that were tlie case-^and I was 
quite convinced that it Avas — how important it must be that this coun- 
try and France should abstain, at least for a consideral)le time, from 
doing what, by encouraging groundless hopes, Avould widen a breach 
still thought capable of being closed. 

He seemed to think the matter not ripe for decision one way or the 
other, and remarked that what he had said was all that at present it 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 17 

was in his power to say. 'The coming of my successor, Mr. Adams, 
looked for from week to week, would doubtless be regarded as the 
appropriate and natural occasion for finally discussing and determin- 
ing the question. In the intermediate time whatever of vigilance and 
activity may be necessary shall, of course, and as a high dutj^ be 
exerted. 

English opinion tends rather, I apprehend, to the theory that a 
peaceful separation may work beneficially for both groups of States 
and not injuriously affect the rest of the world. They can not be 
expected to appreciate the weakness, discredit, complications, and 
dangers which we instinctively and justly ascribe to disunion. 

I beg to add that a phase of this subject will be introduced in the 
House of Commons to-night by Lord Alfred Churchill, and that on 
the 15th instant a motion favoring the recognition will be pressed by 
Mr. W. H. Grregory, member for Galway. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your most obedient servant, 

G. M. DALLAS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State. 



PARLIAMENTARY NOTICES. 

House of Lords, Tuesday, April 9. 
Blackpool and Lytham railroad bill. 

orders of the day, 

Middleton's estate. — Standing order No. 141 to be considered, in 
order to its being dispensed with, on the petition for a private bill. 
Lunacj' regulation bill. — Committee. 
Queensland government bill. — Committee. 

House of Commons, Tuesday, April 9. 

NOTICES OF MOTIONS. 

Lord Stanley. — To ask the under secretary of state for war what 
steps have been or are being taken to abolish purchase in the army 
above the rank of major, as recommended b}' the commission of 1856. 

Lord Alfred Churchill. — To ask the secretary of state for foreign 
affairs whether it is the intention of her Majesty's government to 
recognize the Confederate States of America without a guarantee that 
the flag of that confederation shall not be made subservient to the 
slave trade, and whether it is the intention of her Majesty's govern- 
ment to invite a conference of the European powers on the subject, so 
as to prevent the African slave trade being reopened or carried on 
under the flag of the said confederation. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

No, 4.] Department of State, 

Washington, April 27, 1861. 
Sir; A despatch has just been received from Mr, Dallas, dated the 
9th of April instant, the record of which (No. 330) you doubtless will 

S. Doc. 18 2 



18 NEUTRALITY OF GKEAT BEITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

find in the archives of the legation when 5^011 shall have arrived at 
London. 

In that paper Mr. Dallas stages that he had had a conversation with 
Lord John Rnssell, the minister of foreign affairs of her Britannic 
Majesty's government, on the snbject of a protest against anj'^ recog- 
nition of the so-called Confederate States of America, the protest hav- 
ing been presented to him by Mr. Dallas, in obedience to a circular 
letter of instructions sent to him from this department, under the 
date of the 9th ultimo. 

Mr. Dallas represents that his lordship assured him, with great 
eai-nestness, that there was not the slightest disposition in the British 
government to grasp at any advantage which might be supposed to 
arise from the unpleasant domestic differences in the United States; 
but on the contrary, that they would be highly gratified if those dif- 
ferences were adjusted, and the Union restored to its former unbroken 
position. 

This, by itself, w^ould be very gratifying to the President. Mr. 
Dallas, however, adds that he endeavored to impress upon his lord- 
ship how important it must be that Great Britain and France should 
abstain, at least for a considerable time, from doing what, by encourag- 
ing groundless hopes, would widen a breach still thought capable of 
being closed; but that his lordship seemed to think the matter not 
ripe for decision one way or the other, and remarked that what he 
had already said was all that at present it was in his power to say. 

When you shall have read the instructions at large which have been 
sent to you, you will hardlj^ need to be told that these last remarks of 
his lordship are b}' no means satisfactory to this government. Her 
Britanic Majesty's government is at libertj' to choose whether it will 
retain the friendship of this government by refusing all aid and com- 
fort to its enemies, now in flagrant rebellion against it, as we think 
the treaties existing between the two countries require, or whether the 
government of Her Majesty will take the jirecarious benefits of a dif- 
ferent course. 

You will lose no time in making known to her Britannic Majesty's 
government that the President regards the answer of his lordship as 
possibly indicating a j)olicy that this government would be obliged to 
deem injurious to its rights and derogating from its dignit3\ 
I am, sir, respectfuU}', your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

C. F. Adams, Esq., 

&c., &c., &c. 



Mr. Dallas to Mr. Seward. 

No. 333.] Legation of the United States, 

London, May 2, 1861. 

Sir: In my No. 329 I mentioned having received your Nos. 306 and 
307, and "a'circular of the 9th of March, 1861." As I have got no 
despatch from you numbered 308, it is probable that this "circular" 
was considered at the department as representing that number in the 
series. I have now to acknowledge your several despatches, num- 
bered, respectively^ 309, 310, 311, and 312, whose contents have had 
my careful and prompt attention. 

You have doubtless noticed that the motion of Mr. Gregory, in the 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN" IN THE CIVIL WAR. 19 

House of Commons, on tlie recognition of the soutliern confederation — 
which motion I mentioned at the conclusion of my No. 330 — under- 
went postponement from the Kith to the 30th ultimo, and has again 
been deferred a fortnight, for the reasons stated in the extract from 
the " Times" newspaper of the 30th Ajiril, hereto annexed. 

Tlie solicitude felt by Lord John Russell as to the effect of certain 
measures represented as likely to be adopted by the President induced 
him to request me to call at his private residence yesterday. I did 
so. He told me that the three representatives of the southern con- 
federacy were here; that he had not seen them, but was not nnwilling 
to do so, unofficiaUy ; that there existed an understanding" between this 
government and that of France which would lead both to take the same 
course as to recognition, whatever that course might be; and he then 
referred to the rumoi- of a meditated blockade of southern ports and 
their discontinuance as ports of entrj" — topics on which I had heard 
nothing, and could therefore say nothing. But as I informed him 
that Mr. Adams had apprised me of his intention to be on his way 
hither, in the steamship "Niagara," which left Boston on the 1st May, 
and that he would probably arrive in less than two weeks, bj^ the 12th 
or loth instant, his lordship acquiesced in the expediency of disre- 
garding mei'e rumor, and waiting the full knowledge to be brought by 
my successor. 

The motion, therefore, of Mr. Gregory may be further postponed, 
at his lordship's suggestion, 

I have the honor to be, sir, j^our most obedient servant, 

G. M. DALLAS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State. 



[From the London Times, April 30, 1861.] 

America. — In reply to a question from Mr. W. E. Foster, Mr. Greg- 
ory stated that in deference to the expressed opinion of the foreign 
secretary, who had informed him that a discussion at the present 
moment upon the expediency of a prompt recognition of the southern 
confederation of America would be embarrassing to the public serv- 
ice, and in deference, also, to the wishes of several honorable friends 
of his, he should postpone for a fortnight the motion which stood in 
his name for to-morrow night. The noble loi'd at the head of the for- 
eign ofi&ce believed that the motion might then be brought forward 
without inconvenience. 



[From the London Times, May 3, 1861.] 

America. — Southern Letters of Marque. — Mr. J. Ewart asked 
the secretary of state for foreign affairs whether, seeing the possibilitj' 
of privateering being permitted and encouraged by the southern con- 
federation of the States of America, Her Majesty's government had 
placed a sufficient naval force, or intended to increase it, in the Gulf 
of Mexico, with a view to protect British shipping and British prop- 
erty on board of American ships; and if jirivateers, sailing under the 
flag of an unrecognized power, would be dealt with as j)irates. 

Lord J. Russell said : In answer to the first part of the question of 



20 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

the honorable gentleman, I beg to say that her Majesty's government 
has direeterl that a naval force, for the protection of British shipping, 
should be sent to the coast of America. As to the latter part of the 
question, I will state to the house that the government has, from day 
to day, received the most lamentable accounts of the progress of the 
war in the States of America. Her Majestj^'s government heard the 
other day that the Confederated States have issued letters of marque; 
and to-day we have heard that it is intended there shall be a blockade 
of all the ports of the southern States. As to the general provisions 
of the law of nations on these questions, some of the points are so new 
as well as so imj)ortant that they have been referred to the law officers 
of the crown for their opinion in order to guide the government in its 
insti-U(;tions, both to the English minister in America and the com- 
mander of the naval squadron. Her Majesty's government has felt 
that it was its duty to use every possible means to avoid taking any 
part in the lamentable contest now raging in the American States. 
[Hear! hear!] And nothing but the imperative duty of protecting 
British interests, in case they should be attacked, justifies the govern- 
ment in at all interfering. We have not been involved in any way 
in that contest by any act or giving any advice in the matter, and, 
for God's sake, let us if possible keep out of it! [Cheers.] 



Mr. Adauhs to Mr. Seward. 

[Extracts.] 

No. 1.] Legation of the United States, 

London, May 17, 1861. 

Sir: I have the satisfaction to announce my safe arrival at this 
place on Monday evening, the 13th of this month. The steamer 
reached Liverpool at eleven in the morning, where I was received 
with the utmost kindness, and strongly solicited to remain at least 
one day. A large deputation of the American Chamber of Commerce 
waited upon me and delivered an address, to which I made a brief 
reply. Both have been printed in the newspapers, and I transit a 
copy of the Times containing them. I could not fail to observe, in the 
course of these proceedings, the great anxiet}^ and the fluctuating 
sentiment that prevail in regard to the probable issue of affaii'S in 
America. I could also perceive that my arrival had been ex]3ected 
with far more solicitude than I had anticipated. It was not disguised 
from me that a supposed communitj'^ of interest in the cotton culture 
was weighing heavily in that city in favor of the disaffected; and that 
much misapprehension jirevailed as to the relative j^osition of parties 
in the United States, which it was of some consequence to dispel. To 
this end it had been the wish that I could have found it convenient 
to make a longer stay in the place. 

Under other circumstances I might have so far deferred to these 
representations as to delay my depart ure for twenty-four hours. But, 
on the other hand, some incidental allusions to the state of things in 
London convinced me of the importance of losing no time on my way. 
Accordingly I took the next train in the afternoon, and was in a con- 
dition to proceed at once to business on tlie morning of Tuesday, the 
14th. In the interval between my departure from Boston on the 1st 
and vaj arrival on the 14th, I discovered that some events had taken 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 21 

place deserviiit): of attention. The agents of the so-called Confederate 
States had arrived, and, as it is supposed, through their instigation 
certain inquiries and motions had been initiated in Parliament for 
the purpose of developing the views of the ministry in regard to 
American affairs. T allude more particularly to the questions pro- 
posed by Mr. Gregory, of Galway, and to the motion of Mr. liorsfall, 
the member for Liverpool, touching the effect of the blockade pro- 
claimed by the President against the southern ports. The answer 
given by Lord John Russell, in the proceedings of the 6th of May, 
will, of course, have attracted your attention long before these lines 
meet your eye. I need not say that it excited general surprise, espe- 
cially among those most friendly to the government of the United 
States. There seemed to be not a little precipitation in at once rais- 
ing the disaffected States up to the level of a belligerent power, before 
it had developed a single one of the real elements which constitute 
military efficiency outside of its geographical limits. The case of the 
Greeks was by no means a parallel case, for the declaration had not 
been made until such time had intervened as was necessary to prove, 
by the very words quoted by Lord John Russell from the instructions 
of the British government, that the power was sufficient "to cover 
the sea with its cruisers." Whereas in the present iiistance there w^as 
no evidence to show as yet the existence of a single privateer afioat. 
The inference seemed almost inevitable that there existed a disposi- 
tion at least not to chill the hopes of those who are now drawing the 
very breath of life only from the expectation of symf>athj' in Great 
Britain. Yet I am not quite prepared to saj' that there is just ground 
for the idea. On the contrary, T am led to believe, from the incidental 
discussion afterwards held in both houses, as well as from other infor- 
mation, that the language of Lord John Russell was viewed as not 
altogether sufficiently guarded, and that the ministry as a whole are 
not prepared to countenance any such conclusion. 

There are still other reasons which occasion in me great surprise at 
the action of his lordship. I need not say that I w^as received by my 
predecessor, Mr. Dallas, with the greatest kindness and cordiality. I 
immediately learned from him that he had declined himself to enter 
into any discussions on the subject, because he knew that I was 
already on my way out, and that I should probably come fully pos- 
sessed of the views of my government, and ready to communicate 
them freelj" to the authorities here. To this end he had already con- 
certed with Lord John Russell the earliest possible measures for my 
presentation and for a conference with him. In regard to the cere- 
mony, there were circumstances attending it which, in the precise 
posture of affairs, give it some significance. * * On Tuesday morn- 
ing Mr. Dallas called on me to accompany him on his visit to Lord 
John Russell, at his house, at eleven o'clock. Great was our disap- 
pointment, however, to find that he had been suddenly called away, 
at an early hour, to visit his brother, the Duke of Bedford, at Woburn 
Abbey, who w^as very ill, and who actually died at two o'clock in the 
afternoon of that day. This, of course, has j)ut an end to all further 
communication with him for the present. I very much regretted this 
circumstance, as I should have been glad to converse with him prior 
to the final action upon the proclamation which was adopted bj^ the 
Priv}' Council, and which was issued in the Gazette on the very same 
day. A copy of that proclamation is to be found in the Times of the 
loth of May, the same paj)er which I have already desired to transmit 



22 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

for another purpose. I submit it to your consideraiion without 
comment. 

Feeling- doubtful how the informal arranfiement of Lord John Rus- 
sell migiit have been affected by his sudden departure, I at once 
addressed to him the customary announcement of my arrival and a 
request for an audience of her jViajesty at an early day. This brought 
me immediate replies from the minister and from his secretary', Mr. 
Hammond, confirming the appointment of Thursday (yesterday) as 
the time for my presentation, while the latter gentleman notified me 
that, in the abseiice of Lord .John Russell, Lord Palmerston would be 
in waiting at the palace at three o'clock to present me. At the same 
time Mr. Dallas received a similar notification, appointing the same 
hour and place for his audience of leave. This arrangement was 
fully carried out yesterday according to the programme. Mr. Dallas 
was introduced first and took his leave, after which 1 presented my 
credentials, with a few words expressive of the desire of my govern- 
ment to maintain the friendly relations existing between the two 
countries; and thus I became the recognized minister. 

Thus an end is put to all the speculations which have been set afloat 
in some quarters for interested purposes touching the probable posi- 
tion of the minister of the United States at this court. I might add 
that so far I have eveiy reason to be fully satisfied with the reception 
which I have met with from everybody'. Fortunately the news which 
came from the Ignited States by the same steamer which brought me 
was calculated to dispel many of the illusions that had been indus- 
triously elaborated during the period of isolation of the city of Wash- 
ington, and to confirm the faith of those who had permitted them- 
selves to doubt whether all government in the United States was of 
any more cohesiveness than a rope of sand. Yet I cannot say that 
the public opinion is yet exactly what we would wish it. Much 
depends upon the course of things in the United States and the firm- 
ness and energy made visible in the direction of affairs. 

The morning^ papers contain a report of the debate in the House of 
Lords on the Queen's proclamation, to which I beg to call your par- 
ticular attention. I can not say that the tone of it is generally such 
as I could wish. There is undoubtedly a considerable influence at 
work here, both in and out of the ministry, which must be met and 
counteracted at as early a moment as practicable. Mr. Gregory yes- 
terday gave notice of a postponement of the consideration of his 
motion until the 7th of June. Tlie reason assigned is the situation 
of Lord John Russell. * * The same cause, however, which post- 
pones this debate also delays my opportunities of conference with 
the minister. My wish has been to confer with him rather than with 
any of the subordinates, for reasons which will readily occur to you. 
Next week come the Whitsuntide holidays, and the adjournment of 
Parliament for ten days, during which little can be done with effect. 
I propose, nevertheless, at once to apply for a conference at as earlj'- 
a period as jDossible. 

I have Just received a visit from a Mr. Ari-owsmith, who came on 
behalf of Mr. Cunard's Steamship Company, to know whether the 
Government would desire any number of their steam vessels to fur- 
ther tlieir operations of blockade. I said, in reply, that I had no 
instructions on that point and could give no information, but that I 
was now writing and would communicate the proposal. Mr. Arrow- 
smith says that fifteen or twenty vessels could be furnished at a 
moment's notice which, by preparations of cotton pressed between 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 23 

decks, could be made to sustain guns, and thus be efficient instin- 
ments in closing- tlie southern ports. 

I have tlie honor to be, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 

P. S. — I have this moment received j'our despatches No. 3 and No. 
4. They are of such importance that I immediately addressed a note 
to the foreign office requesting an early interview. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

[Extracts.] 

No. 10.] Department of State, 

Washington, May 21, 1861. 

Sir: This government considers that our relations in Europe have 
reached a crisis, in which it is necessary for it to take a decided stand, 
on which not onl}' its immediate measures, but its ultimate and per- 
manent policy can be detei'mined and defined. At the same time it 
neither means to menace Great Britain nor to wound the suscepti- 
bilities of that or any other European nation. That policy is devel- 
oped in this paper. 

The paper itself is not to be read or shown to the British secretary'' 
of state, nor are any of its positions to be prematurely, unnecessarily, 
or indiscreetly made known. But its spirit will be your guide. You 
will keep back nothing when the time arrives for its being said with 
dignity, propriety, and effect, and you will all the while be careful to 
say nothing that will be incongruous or inconsistent with the views 
which it contains. 

Mr. Dallas, in a brief despatch of May 2 (No. ;333), tells us that 
Lord John Russell recently requested an interview with him on account 
of the solicitude which his lordship felt concerning the effect of certain 
measures represented as likely to be adopted by the President. In 
that conversation the British secretary told Mr. Dallas that the three 
representatives of the southern confederacy were then in London; 
that Lord John Russell had not yet seen them, but that he was not 
unwilling to see them unofficially. He further informed Mr; Dallas 
that an understanding exists between the British and French govern- 
ments which would lead both to take one and the same course as to 
recognition. His lordship then referred to the rumor of a meditated 
blockade by us of southern ports, and a discontinuance of tliem as 
ports of entry. Mr. Dallas answered that he knew nothing on those 
topics, and therefore could say nothing. He added that you were 
expected to arrive in two weeks. Upon this statement Lord .John 
Russell acquiesced in the expediency of waiting for the full knowl- 
edge you were expected to bring. 

Mr. Dallas transmitted to us some newspaper reports of ministerial 
explanations made in Parliament. 

You will base no proceedings on parliamentary debates further tlian 
to seek explanations, when necessary, and communicate them to this 
department. 

The President regrets that Mr. Dallas did not protest against the 
proposed unofficial intercourse between the British government and 



24 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

the missionaries of the insurgents. It is due, however, to Mr. Dallas 
to say that our instructions had been given onlj^ to you and not to 
him, and that his loyalty and fidelty, too rare in these times, are 
appreciated. 

Intercourse of -a^ny kind with the so-called commissioners is liable 
to be construed as a recognition of the authority which appointed 
them. Such intercourse would be none the less hurtful to us for being 
called unofficial, and it might be even more injurious, because we 
should have no means of knowing what points might be resolved by 
it. Moreover, unofficial intercourse is useless and meaningless if it 
is not expected to ripen into official intercourse and direct recognition. 
It is left doubtful here whether the proposed unofficial intercourse 
has yet actually begun. Your own antecedent instructions are deemed 
explicit enough, and it is hoiDed that you have not misunderstood 
them. You Avill, in any event, desist from all intercourse whatever, 
unofficial as well as official, with the British government, so long as it 
shall continue intercourse of either kind with the domestic enemies of 
this country. When intercourse shall have been arrested for this 
cause, you will communicate witlithis department and receive further 
directions. 

Lord John Russell has informed us of an understanding between 
the British and French governments that they will act together in 
regard to our aifairs. This communication, however, loses something 
of its value from the circumstance that the communication was with- 
held until after knowledge of the fact had been acquired by us from 
other sources. AYe know also another fact that has not yet been offi- 
cially communicated to us, namely, that other European states are 
apprised by France and England of their agreement, and are expected 
to concur with or follow them in whatever measures they adopt on 
the subject of recognition. The United States have been impartial 
and just in all their conduct toward the several nations of Europe. 
They will not complain, however, of the combination now announced 
by the two leading powers, although they think they liad a right to 
expect a more independent, if not a more friendly course, from each 
of them. You will take no notice of that or any other alliance. 
Whenever the European governments shall see fit to communicate 
directly with us, we shall be, as heretofore, frank and explicit in our 
reply. 

As to the blockade, you will say that by our own laws and the laws 
of nature, and the laws of nations, this Government has a clear right 
to sup])ress insurrection. An exclusion of commerce from national 
ports which have been seized by insurgents, in the equitable form of 
blockade, is a proper means to that end. You will not insist that our 
blockade is to be respected, if it be not maintained by a competent 
force. But, passing by that question as not now a practical, or at least 
an urgent one, you will add that the blockade is now, and it will con- 
tinue to be, so maintained, and therefore we expect it to be respected 
bj^ Great Britain. You will add that we have already revoked the 
exequatur of a Russian consul who had enlisted in the military serv- 
ice of the insurgents, and we shall dismiss or demand the recall of 
every foreign agent, consular or diplomatic, who shall either disobey 
the federal laws or disown the federal authority. 

As to the recognition of the so-called Southern Confederacy, it is not 
to be made a subject of technical definition. It is, of course, direct 
recognition to publish an acknowledgment of the sovereignty and inde- 
pendence of a new power. It is direct recognition to receive its embas- 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR, 25 

sadors, ministers, agents, or commissioners officially. A concession 
of belligerent rights is liable to be construed as a recognition of tliem. 
No one of these proceedings will pass unquestioned by the United 
States in this case. 

Hitherto, recognition has been moved only on the assumption that the 
so-called Confederate States are de facto a self-sustaining power. Noav, 
after long forbearance, designed to sooth discontent and avert the 
need of civil war, the land and naval forces of the United States have 
been put in motion to repress insurrection. The true character of the 
pretended new State is at once revealed. It is seen to be a power 
existing in pronunciamento only. It has never won a field. It has 
obtained no forts that were not virtually betrayed into its hands 
or seized in breach of trust. It commands not a single port on the 
coast nor any highway out from its pretended capital by land. Under 
these circumstances, Great Britain is called upon to intervene and 
give it body and independence by resisting our measures of suppres- 
sion. British recognition would be British intervention, to create 
within our territory a hostile State by overthrowing this republic itself. 
^ ^ ^. ■^ ^. -^ -^ 

As to the treatment of privateers in the insurgent service, j'ou will say 
that this is a question exclusively our ow^n. We treat them as pirates. 
They are our own citizens, or persons employed by our citizens, prey- 
ing on the commerce of our country. If Great Britain shall choose to 
recognize them as lawful belligerents, and give them shelter from our 
pursuit and punishment, the laws of nations afford an adequate and 
proper remedy. 

Happily, however, her Britannic Majesty's government can avoid 
all these difficulties. It invited us in 185(3 to accede to the declaration 
of the congress of Paris, of which bodj- Great Britain was lierself a 
member, abolishing privateering everywhere in all cases and forever. 
You already have our authority to propose to her our accession to 
that declaration. If she refuse it, it can only be because she is willing 
to become the patron of privateering when aimed at our devastation. 

These positions are not elaborately defended now, because to vin- 
dicate them would impl}^ a possibility of our waiving them. 

We are not insensible of the grave importance of this occasion. We 
see how, upon the result of the debate in which we are engaged, a 
war may ensue between the United States and one, two, or even more 
European nations. War in any case is as exceptional from the habits 
as it is revolting from the sentiments of the American people. But 
if it come it will be fully seen that it results from the action of Great 
Britain, not our own; that Great Britain will liave decided to frater- 
nize with our domestic enemy either without waiting to hear from you 
our remonstrances and our warnings, or after- having heard them. 
War in defence of national life is not immoral, and war in defence of 
indei3endence is an inevitable part of the discipline of nations. 

Tlie dispute will be between the Euroi:)ean and the American 
branches of the British race. All who belong to that race will espe- 
cially deprecate it, as they ought. It may w^ell be believed that men of 
every race and kindred will deplore it. A Avar not unlike it between the 
same parties occurred at the close of the last century. Europe atoned 
by fort}^ years of suffering for the error that Great Britain committed 
in provoking that contest. If that nation shall now repeat the same 
great error, the social convulsions which will follow may not be so 
long, butthej^ will be more general. When thej^ shall have ceased, it 
will, we think, be seen, whatever may have been the fortunes of other 



26 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

natious, that it is not the United States that will have come out of 
them with its precious Constitution altered, or its honestly obtained 
dominions in any degree abridged. Great Britain has but to wait a 
few months, and all her present inconveniences will cease with all our 
own troubles. If she take a different course she will calculate for her- 
self the ultimate, as well as the immediate consequences, and will con- 
sider what position she will hold when she shall have forever lost the 
sympathies and affections of the only nation on whose sympathies and 
affections she has a natural claim. In making that calculation she 
will do well to remember that in the conti-overs}' she proposes to open 
we shall be actuated by neither pride, nor passion, nor cupidity, nor 
ambition; but we shall stand simply on the principle of self-preserva- 
tion, and that our cause will involve the independence of nations and 
the rights of human nature. 

I am, sir, resi)ectfully, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 

[Extracts.] 

No. 2.] Legation of the United States, 

London, May 21, 1861. 

Sir : At the close of my last despatch I stated my purpose to ask an 
early interview with Lord John Russell. A note to that effect was 
immediately sent to the foreign office. An answer was received on 
Saturday morning, sajang that his lordship would be happy to see me, 
if I would take the trouble to go out to Pembroke Lodge, at Rich- 
mond, where he is retired for the present, on Monday at twelve or one 
o'clock, or, if I jjreferred it, he would see me at one o'clock on that 
same day, (May 18.) Although it was approaching eleven o'clock 
when I got the answer, and the distance exceeds nine miles from the 
city, I replied by acceiJting the earlier appointment, and was probablj^ 
myself at the Lodge before he received my note. 

Be this as it may, I found his lordship ready to receive me, so that 
I proceeded at once to business. After expressing the general feeling 
which I believed prevailing in the United States of good will towards 
Great Britain, and the confident expectations I had entertained, down 
to the period of my arrival, that these sentiments were fully recipro- 
cated to m}^ government on the part of the government here, I signi- 
fied my sense of disappointment in not finding this quite so unequivo- 
cally manifested as I had hoped. There were now fewer topics of 
direct difference between the two countries than had probably existed 
at any preceding time, and even these had been withdrawn from dis- 
cussion at this place to be treated on the other side of the water. I 
therefore came out here with little to do beyond the duty of preserv- 
ing the relations actually existing from the risk of being unfavorably 
affected by the unfortunate domestic disturbances prevailing in my 
own country. It was not witliout pain that I was compelled to admit 
that from the day of mj^ arrival I had felt in the proceedings of both 
houses of Parliament, in the language of her Majesty's ministers, and 
in the tone of opinion prevailing in private circles, more of uncertaintj'^ 
about this than I had before thought possible. This sentiment alone 



NEUTEALITY OF GEEAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 27 

would have impelled me to solicit an early intei-view; but I was now 
come under a much stronger motive. I had just received a dispatch 
from my government, based upon a letter from Mr. Dallas, of much 
earlier date than any of the matters to which I had alluded. In that 
letter he had i-eported a conversation with his lordship, the close of 
which had been deemed so unsatisfactory that I had been directed at 
once to seek for a further elucidation of his meaning. It was the 
desire of my government to learn whether it was the intention of her 
Majesty's ministers to adopt a policy which would have the effect to 
widen, if not to make irreparable, a breach which we believed yet to 
be entirely manageable by ourselves. 

At this point his lordship replied by saying that there was no such 
intention. The clearest evidence of that was to be found in the assur- 
ance given by him to Mr. Dallas in the earlier part of the couveisation 
referred to. With regard to the other jiortion, against which I under- 
stood him to intimate he had already heard f i-om Lord Lyons that the 
President had taken exception, he could only say that he hardly saw 
his way to bind the government to any specific course, when circum- 
stances beyond their agency rendered it difficult to tell what might 
happen. Should the insurgent States ultimately succeed in establish- 
ing themselves in an independent position, of the probability of which 
he desired to express no opinion, he presumed « from the general coui'se 
of the United States heretofore, that they did not mean to require of 
other countries to pledge themselves to go further than they had been 
in the habit of going themselves. lie therefore, by what he had said 
to Mr. Dallas, simply meant to say that they were not disposed in any 
way to interfere. 

To this I replied by begging leave to remark that, so far as my gov- 
ernment Avas concerned, any desire to interfere had never been impu' ed 
to Great Britain; but in her peculiar position it was deserving of grave 
consideration whether great caution was not to be used in adoi)ting 
any course that might, even in the most indirect way, have an effect 
to encourage the hopes of the disaffected in America. It had now 
come to this, that without support from here the people of the United 
States considered the termination of this difficult}' as almost entirely 
a question of time. Any course adopted here that would materially 
change that calculation would inevitabl^y raise the most unpleasant 
feelings among them. For independently of the absolute influence of 
Great Britain, admitted to be great, the effect of any supposed inclina- 
tion on her part could not fail to be extensive among the other nations 
of Europe. It was my belief tliat the insurgent States could scarcely 
hope foi- sympathy on this side of the Atlantic, if deprived of any i)ros- 
pect of it here. Hence anything that looked like a manifestation of 
it would be regarded among us as inevitabl}- tending to develop an 
ultimate separation in America; and, whether intended or not, the 
impression inade would scarcely be eft'aced by time. It was in this 
view that I must be permitted to express the great regret I had felt 
on learning the decision to issue the Queen's proclamation, which 
at once raised the insurgents to the level of a belligerent State, and 
still more the language used in regard to it by her Majesty's ministers 
in both houses of Parliament befcn-e and since. Whatever might be 
the design, there could be no shadow of doubt that the effect of these 
events had been to encourage the friends of the disaffected here. The 
tone of the press and of private opinion indicated it strongly. I then 
alluded more especially to the brief repoi't of the lord chancellor's 
speech on Tliursday last, in which he had characterized the rebellious 



28 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIISr IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

portion of my countiy as a belligerent State, and the war that was 
going" on fiHJustuni belliim. 

To this his lordship replied that he thought more stress was laid upon 
these events than thej^ deserved. The fact was tliat a necessity seemed 
to exist to define the course of the government in regard to the partici- 
pation of the subjects of Great Britain in the impending conflict. 
To that end tlie legal questions involved had been referred to those 
officers most conversant with them, and their advice had been taken 
in shaping the result. Their conclusion had been that, as a question 
merely of fact, a war existed. A considerable number of the States, 
at least seven, occupving a wide extent of country, were in oj)en 
resistance, while one or more of the others were associating themselves 
in the same struggle, and as yet there were no indications of any 
other result than a contest of arms more or less severe. In many 
preceding cases much less formidable demonstrations had been recog- 
nized. Under such circumstances it seemed scarcely possible to avoid 
speaking of this in the technical sense Rsjustimi beJluin, that is, a war 
of two sides, without in any way implying an opinion of its justice, 
a,s well as to withhold an endeavor, so far as possible, to bring the 
management of it within the rules of modern civilized warfare. This 
was all tliat was contemplated ])y the Queen's proclamation. It was 
designed to show the purport of existing laws, and to explain to Brit- 
ish subjects their liabilities in case they should engage in the war. 
And, however strongl}^ the people of the United States might feel 
against their enemies, it was hardly to be supposed that in practice 
they would now vary from their uniformly humane policy heretofore 
in endeavoring to assuage and mitigate the horrors of war. 

To all which I answered that under other circumstances I should 
be very read}" to give my cheerful assent to this view of his lordship's. 
But I must be i)ermitted frankly to remark that the action taken 
seemed, at least to my mind, a little more rapid than was absolutely 
called for by the occasion. It might be recollected that the new 
administration had scarcely had sixty days to develop its polic}'; that 
the extent to which all departments of the government had been 
demoralized in the preceding administration was surely understood 
here, at least in part; that the very organization upon which any 
future action was to be predicated was to be renovated and purified 
before a hope could be entertained of energetic and effective labor. 
The consequence had been that it was but just emerging fi-om its diffi- 
culties, and beginning to develop the power of the country to cope 
with this rebellion, when the British Government took the initiative, 
and decided practically^ that it is a struggle of two sides. ' And, further- 
more, it pronounced the insurgents to be a belligerent State before 
they had ever shown their capacity to maintain any kind of warfare 
whatever, except within one of their own harbors, and under every 
possible advantage. It considered them a marine power before they 
had ever exhibited a single privateer on the ocean. I said that I was 
not aware that a single armed vessel had yet been issued from any 
port under the control of these people. Surely this was not the case 
in the instance which had been relied upon in his speech by his lord- 
ship as authority for the present action. There the Greeks, however 
small as a people, had long been actively" and effectually waging war, 
before the interposition of Great Britain, and, to use the language of 
the government, as quoted by himself, had "covered the sea with 
cruisers." It did seem to me, therefore, as if a little more time 
might have been taken to form a more complete estimate of the rela- 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 29 

tive force oi" the contending pai'ties, and of the probabilities of any 
long-drawn issue. And I did not doubt that the view taken by me 
would be that substantially taken botli by the government and the 
people of the United States. They would inevitably infer the existence 
of an intention more or less marked to extend the struggle. For this 
reason it was that I made my present application to know whether 
such a <lesign was or was not entertained. For in the alternative of 
an affirmative answer it was as well for us to know it, as I was bound 
to acknowledge in all frankness that in that contingency I had noth- 
ing further left to do in Great Britain. I said this with regret, as my 
own feelings had been and were of the most friendly nature. 

His lordship replied by an assurance that he participated in tliose 
feelings; neither did he see the action that had been thus far taken 
at all in the light in which I saw it. He believed that the United 
States, in their own previous history, had furnished examples of 
action taken quite as early as that uoav complained of. He instanced 
two cases. The first I do not now remember, for it seemed to me not 
important at the time; the other was the insurrection in Hungary 
under Kossuth, at Avhich period, he believed, they had gone so far as 
actually to send an agent to that country with a view to recognition, 
and that to the great dissatisfaction and against the remonstrances of 
Austria. 

I replied onl}' to the second case, bj' remarking that the incidents 
attending that affair were not fresh in my mind, neither was I sure 
that I ever knew the whole action of the government; but it was my 
impression that the object of the mission was only confined to the 
acquisition of the facts necessary to form an opinion, and that, after 
they were obtained, no public step of any kind had been taken. 
Neither could I myself recollect an instance in which ample time had 
not been given bj' the United States for the development of events 
sufficiently decisive to justify any action that might have followed; 
for I begged it to be understood that the government did not mean 
at all to deny that there were cases in wliich recognition of a revolu- 
tionary government might be both expedient and proper. The rule 
was clear, that whenever it became apparent that any organized form 
of society had advanced so far as to prove its power to defend and 
protect itself against the assaults of enemies, and at tlie same time to 
manifesr a cai)acity to maiutain binding relations with foreign 
nations, then a measure of recognition could not be justly objected 
to on any side. The case was verj^ different when such an interfer- 
ence should take place, prior to the establishment of the proof 
required, as to bring about a result which would not probably have 
happened but for that external agency. 

And here I stop for a moment to make two remarks upon this part 
of the conversation. The first of these is, that I have an impression 
tliat the agent to go to Hungarj-, alluded to by his lordship, was Mr. 
Mann, the same gentleman who is now figuring in the commission of 
the confederates at this place. If in this I am right, we can be at no 
loss for his lordship's sources of information. The other remark is,, 
that the Hungarian precedent was unquestionably one in which a very 
strong sympathj" with the insurgent party actually existed in the 
United States. Are we therefore to infer a similar impulse to actuate 
the precipitate measure now taken here? 

I did not any this to his lordship, though I might have done so; but 
I proceeded to observe that I had come to P^ngland prepared to pre- 
sent the views of my government on the general question, and that I 



30 NEUTRALITY OF GEEAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

should have done so in full but for the interposition of this more 
immediate despatch. At the present moment I should touch pnly 
upon one point in connexion with the acknowledgment of the insur- 
gents even as a belligerent State. It seemed necessarj?^ to call the 
attention of his lordship to the fact which must be obvious to him, 
that as yet they had not laid any foundation for government solid 
enough to deserve a moment's confidence. Thej^ had undertaken to 
withdraw certain States from the government by an arbitrary act 
which they called secession, not known to the Constitution, the valid- 
ity of which had at no time been acknowledged by the people of the 
United States, and which Avas now emphatically denied; but not con- 
tent with this, they had gone on to substitute another system among 
themselves, avowedly based upon the recognition of this right of 
States to withdraw or secede at pleasure. With such a treaty, I would 
ask, where could be vested the obligation of treaties with foreign 
powers, of the payment of any debts contracted, or, indeed, of any 
act iDerformed in good faith by the common authority for tlie time 
being established. For my own part, I fully believed that such a 
system could not deserve to be denominated, in any sense, a govern- 
ment; and therefore I could not but think au}^ act performed here, 
having a tendency to invest it in the eye of the world with the notion 
of form and substance, could be attended only with the most complete 
disappointment to all the parties connected with it. 

His lordship here interposed bj^ saying that there Avas not, in his opin- 
ion, any occasion at present for going into this class of arguments, a^ 
the government did not contemplate taking any step that way. Should 
any such time arrive in the future, he should be verj^ ready to listen 
to every argument that might be presented against it on tlie part of 
the United States. At this moment he thought we had better confine 
ourselves to the matter immediately in hand. 

I then remarked that there was another subject upon which I had 
received a despatch, though I should not, after so long a conference, 
venture to do more than open the matter to-day. This was a pro- 
posal to negotiate in regard to the rights of neutrals in time of war. 
The necessary powers had been transmitted to me, together with a 
form of a convention, which I would do myself the honor to submit to 
his consideration if there w^as any disposition to pursue the matter 
further. His lordship then briefly reviewed the past action of the two 
countries since the meeting of the congress at Paris, and expressed 
the willingness of Great Britain to negotiate; but he seemed to desire 
to leave the subject in the hands of Lord Lyons, to whom he intimated 
that he had already transmitted authority to assent to am^ modifica- 
tion of the only point in issue which the government of the United 
States might prefer. On that matter he believed there would be no 
difficulty whatever. Under these circumstances I shall not i^ress the 
subject furiher at this place until I receive new directions to that 
effect from the department. 

His lordship then observed that there were two points upon which 
he should be glad himself to be enlightened, although he did not know 
whether I was prepared to furnish the information. They both related 
to the President's proclamation of a blockade. The first question was 
upon the nature of the blockade. The coast was very extensive, 
stretching along the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico a great way. 
Was it the design of the United States to institute an effective block- 
ade in its whole extent, or to make only a declaration to that effect as 
to the whole, and to confine the actual blockade to particular points? 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 31 

Considering the uniform doctrine of the government refusing to recog- 
nize the validity of mere paper blockades, he could hardly suiDpose 
they designed the latter. 

To this I replied that 1 knew nothing directly of the President's 
intentions on this subject; but that inasmuch as the government had 
alwaj^s jjrotested against mere paper blockades, I could not suppose 
that it was now disposed to change its doctrine. On the contrary, I 
had every reason for affirming that it was the iiitention to make an 
effective blockade; and this was more practicable than at first sight 
might appear from the fact that there were few har1)ors along the 
coast, however great its extent, and these were not ver}^ easy of access. 
I thought, therefore, that even though the blackade might not be per- 
fect, it would be sufficientl}^ so to come within the legitimate construc- 
tion of the term. 

His lordship then alluded to the other point, which was, that the 
proclamation assigned no precise date for the commencement of the 
blockade, which he believed was necessary; but he presumed that 
that defect might be remedied at an}- time. To which I added that I 
did not doubt any such omission of form would be supplied as soon 
as it was pointed out. 

His lordship then made some remarks upon the adoption of the tar- 
iff; to which I replied that, in my belief, that law was mainly passed 
as a revenue measure, with incidental protection; that it was not in 
any way aimed in a hostile spirit to foreign nations; and that the 
people of the United States would always buy from Great Britain as 
much as thej^ could pay for, and generally a good deal more. This 
last remark raised a smile; and thus ended his lordship's series of 
inquiries. 

Having thus disposed of these secondarj^ questions, I returned once 
more to the charge, and asked him what answer I should return to- 
the inquiry which I had been directed to make. In order to avoid 
any ambiguity, I took out of mj^ pocket your despatch No. 4, and read 
to him the i)aragraph recapitulating the substance of Mr. Dallas's 
report of his interview, and the very last pai'agraph. I said that it 
was important to me that I should not make any mistake in reporting 
this part of the conversation; therefore I should beg him to furnish 
me with the precise language. He said that he did not himself know 
what he was to say. If it was expected of him to give any j)ledge of 
an absolute nature that his government would not at anj^ future time, 
no matter what the circumstances might 1)e, recognize an existing 
State in America, it was more than he could j)romise. If I wished an 
exact reply, my better way would be to address him the inquirj^ in 
writing. I said that I was well aware of that, but I had hoped that I 
might be saved the necessitj^ of doing so. On reflection, he proposed 
to avoid that b^^ offering to transmit to Lord Lj^ons directions to give 
such a reply to the President as, in his own opinion, might be satis- 
factory. To this arrangement I gave my assent, though not without 
some doubt whether I was doing right. In truth, if I were persuaded 
that her Majesty's government were really animated by a desire to 
favor the rebellion, I should demand a categorical answer; but thus 
far I see rather division of opinion, consequent upon the pressure of 
the commercial classes. Hence I preferred to give the short time 
demanded, as well as to place in the hands of the President himself 
the power to decide upon the suflficieney of the reply. 



32 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

It may be well to state that, both in matter and manner, the confer- 
ence, which has been reported as fully and as accurately as my mem- 
ory would permit, was conducted in the most friendly spirit. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seivard. 

[Extracts.] 

No. 4.] Legation of the United States, 

London, May SI, 1861. 
Sir: 



* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 


* 



I have likewise to acknowledge the reception of a printed circular 
addressed to my predecessor, Mr. Dallas, and dated the 27th of Aj^ril, 
1801, transmitting the proclamation of the President declaring the 
blockade of the ports of Virginia and North Caroliua. In this con- 
nexion it maj' be as well to call your attention to the manner in which 
these measures are viewed here, so far as it may be gathered from 
what is casually dropped by members of Parliament as well as what 
is published in the newspapers. A leading article in the Times news- 
paper of this morning is especially deserving of attention. It would 
seem from this that a scheme to overturn the old and recognized Brit- 
ish law of blockade, through the means of a joint declaration of the 
European powers, somewhat after the fashion of the armed neutrality 
of the last century, is among the things now floating in the minds of 
f>eople here. Great Britain, so long known and feared as the tyrant 
of the ocean, is now to transform herself into a champion of neutral 
rights and the freedom of navigation, even into the ports of all the 
world, with or without regard to the interests of the nations to whom 
they may belong. 

^ :<c ^ ^ ^ ^ 

I beg to call your attention to the language used by Lord .John Rus- 
sell and by Mr. Gladstone in the debate in the House of Commous last 
evening in relation to a passing remark of Sir John Ramsden upon 
American affairs on the preceding Monday. The}^ indicate what I 
believe to be true, that the feeliug toward the United States is improv- 
ing in the higher circles here. It was never otherwise than favorable 
among the people at large. I was myself present and heard Sir John 
Ramsden on Monday night. His remark was partially cheered by the 
opposition, who were ready to receive anything favorably from a new 
convert; but I have reason to believe that it met with. decided con- 
demnation from a large majority of the members. The proof of this 
was established last night in the manner in which the castigation of 
Mr. Gladstone, which I also witnessed, was listened to and approved. 
Sir John seems to liave gained no laurels in this conflict. The ministry 
sustained themselves in the division last night, which is, I presume, 
the decisive test for the year. I believe this may be regarded as a 



NEUTKALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 33 

favorable result to the Ignited States. I shall reserve some general 
observations on the subject for a separate despatch in the earlj^ part 
of next week. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William II. Seward, 

Secretarij of State. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

No. 14. J Department of State, 

Washington, Jane S, ISiJl. 

Sir: Your despatch of May 17 (No. 1) has been received. 

Your speech at Liverpool was equally prudent and hai)py. Your 
j)romptness in passing through the town to the seat of government, 
although to be regretted in some respects, is, in view of the circum- 
stances, approved. 

Every instruction you have received from this department is full of 
evidence of the fact that the principal danger in the present insurrec- 
tion which the President has apprehended was that of foreign inter- 
vention, aid, or sympathy; and especially of such intervention, aid, 
or sjnnpatlu' oh the part of the government of Great Britain. 

The justice of this apprehension has been vindicated by the follow- 
ing facts, namely: 

1. A guarded reserve on the part of the British secretary of state, 
when Mr. Dallas j)i'esented to him our protest against the recognition 
of the insurgents, wdiich seemed to imply that, in some conditions, not 
explained to us, such a recognition might be made. 

1*. The contracting of an engagement by the government of Great 
Britain with that of France, without consulting us, to the effect that 
both governments should adopt one and the same course of procedure 
in regard to the insurrection. 

3. Lord John Russell's announcement to Mr. Dallas that he was not 
unwilling to receive the so-called commissioners of the insurgents 
unofficially. 

4. The issue of the Queen's proclamation, remarkable, first, for the 
circumstances under which it was made, namely, on the very day of 
your arrival in London, which had been anticipated so far as to pro- 
vide for your reception by the British secretary, but without afford- 
ing you the interview promised before any decisive action should be 
adopted; secondly, tlie tenor of the proclamation itself, which seems 
to recognize, in a vague manner indeed, but does seem to recognize, 
the insurgents as a heltigereid national power. 

That proclamation, unmodified and unexijlained, would leave us no 
alternative but to regard the Government of Great Britain as question- 
ing our free exercise of all the rights of self-defense guaranteed to us 
by our Constitution and the laws of nature and of nations to suppress 
the insurrection. 

I should have proceeded at once to direct yon to communicate to 
the British Government the definitive views of the President on the 
grave subject, if there were not especial reasons for some little deh\v. 

These reasons are, first, Mr. Thouvenel has informed our represent- 
ative at Paris that the two governments of Great Britain and France 

S. Doc. 18 3 



84 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

were preparing, and would, without delay, address communications 
to this (lovernment concernina,' the attitude to be assumed by them 
in regard to the insurrection. Tlieir communications are hourly 
expected. 

Second. Yovi have already asked, and, it is presumed, will have 
obtained, an interview with tlie British secretary, and will have been 
al)le to present the general views of this Government and to learn 
definitely the purposes of Great Britain in the matter, after it shall 
have learned bow unsatisfactory the action of the British Government 
liitherto lias been to the Government of the Tnited States. 

The President is solicitous to show his higli appreciation of every 
demonstration of consideration for the United States which the Brit- 
ish Government feels itself at libertj' to make. He instructs me, 
therefore, to say that the prompt and cordial manner in which you 
were received, under peculiar circumstances arising out of domestic 
iiftlictions which had befallen her Majesty and the secretary of state 
for foreign affairs, is very gratifying to this Government. 

A year ago the differences which liad partly estranged the British 
and the American i^eople from each other seemed to have l)een 
remov^ed forever. It is painful to reflect that that ancient alienation 
has risen up again under circumstances which portend great social 
evils, if not disaster, to botli countries. 

Referring to your previous instructions, and reserving furtlier direc- 
tions until we shall have your own report of the attitude of the Brit- 
ish government as defined by itself for your consideration, 
I am, sii', respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM II. SP:WARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Es(i., dr., d-c, d-c. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seiraiul. 

[Extract.] 

No. 5.] Legation of the United States, 

London, June 7, 1861. 

Sir: I have the honor, to acknowledge the receipt of your several 
despatches. No. 7, of tlie 11th of May, with copies of the correspond- 
ence relating to the slave trade and to San Domingo; No. S, of the 
20th, enclosing the commission of Neil McLachlan, estj., as consul at 
Leith, and No. 0. of the I'lst, enclosing the commission of Edward 
Leavenworth, esq., as consul at Sidney, New South Wales. These 
commissions have been duly transmitted to her Majesty's secretary 
for foreign afl'airs, with the customary request for recognition. The 
earlier papers have l)een carefully read, and will be made the subject 
of considei-ation at the next conference, which I purpose to ask of his 
lordship at an early day. 

I think I can report with confidence a considerable amelioration of 
sentiment hiere towards the government of the L^nited States. This 
may l)e partly ascribed to the impression made by the news received 
of vigorous and effective measures in America, and partly to a sense 
that the preceding action of her Majesty's ministers has been con- 
strued to mean more than they intended by it. It cannot be denied 
that it had opened a most gi-ave question touching the use that might 
be made of all the poi-ts of (4reat Britain as a shelter for captures by 
})rivateers puri»orting to be authorized by the rebellious States. After 



NEFTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 85 

;i careful exaininatioii of the subject I had couie to the couclusiou 
that, without some further positive action, the precedin.c: practice in 
this country would authorize the retention of suclv captures until con- 
demned as prizes in some admiralty court set up by the insurgents at 
home and the sale of them afterwards. The effect of this, in giving 
them encouragement, can scarcely be estimated. It would at once 
enlist in their behalf most of the daring and desperate adventurers of 
every nation, whose sole object is plunder, and would initiate a striig'- 
gle between a community of planters who have nothing to lose on the 
ocean and a commercial nation which whitens every sea with the 
sails of a peaceful navigation. That so serious a consequence as this 
was ever intended to flow from the ]3recipitate act of the government 
here I did not believe. Hence it was with great satisfaction that I 
learned on Monday that the question would be proposed on that day 
I)y Mr. Forster in the House of Commons, which you will have seen 
before this in the record of the proceedings of tliat bodj^ and that it 
would be fully answered by Lord John Russell on behalf of her 
Majesty's ministers. This answer, as since made, may be regarded as 
satisfactory, so far as it closes the door to one bad effect of the proc- 
lamation; but it does not renu)ve the main difficulty of putting the 
legitimate and the spurious authority in the same category. Although 
in practice the operation is favorable to the former, in theory the 
admission of equality is equally vicious. The only consolation is to 
be found in the evident desire betrayed by the government here to 
avoid in any way a collision with the United States oi- any direct 
encouragement of the insurgents. 

This is the day assigned for the consideration of the motion of Mr. 
Gregor}", the member for Galway. I understand that he means to 
enter largely into the question of recognition of the confederates, and 
that he will probablj^ be answered as fully. Hi is stated to me that 
the ministry are willing to have the discussion go on. For obvious 
reasons I do not think it advisable to attend the debate myself; but I 
shall take measures to obtain the best information of the actual state 
of feeling in the House from jjersonal observation, and to transmit 
my own conclusions in the next despatch. Unfortunately it will be 
necessary to close the present one before evening, in order to be in 
time for the steamer. 

^ si« :i; ^ ;j! :J; ^ 

T have the honor to be, sir, your obedienti servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Serrefari/ of Staff ., WashiiKjioii, D. C 



Mr. SfWdrd fo Mr. Adams. 

No. IC).] Department of State, 

Waslniajton, June S, ISGl. 
Sir: I enclose a copy of a note of this date addressed to Lord Lyons, 
which will dispel any uncertainty which the Hritish government maj 
entertaiu in regard to our recognition of a rule of international la^^ 
which they nia}' deem important. 

I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c. 



36 NEUTKALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

Mr. SewarcJ to Lord Lyons. 

Department of State, 

WdshiiKjton, June cV, 1861. 

My Lord: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note 
of the 5th instant, witli the accompanying- papers, relative to a claim 
in the case of the cargo of the bark Winifred, a part of which is rep- 
resented to belong to British subjects. 

In reply, I regret that at this juncture I do not feel at liberty to 
interfere in the case, as it is understood that the usual proceedings in 
the prize court at New York have been set on foot against the vessel 
and her cargo. 

If, however, that court shall be satisfied of the ownership by British 
subjects of the part of the cargo claimed, it cannot be doulited that 
restitution will be decreed, as this government recognizes tjie right of 
the property of a friendly nation in the vessels of an insurgent to Ix^ 
exempted from condemnation. 

The papers which accompanied your note are herewith returned. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, your lord- 
ship's most obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

The Right Honorable Lord Lyons, cCy-., &c., dV. 



Mr. Seirard to Mr. Adams. 

No. 15.] Department of State, 

IVasJiingto)), June S, 1861. 

Sir: I have the pleasure of acknowledging the receipt of your des- 
patch of May 21 (No. -), wliich contains a report of the conversation 
which you had held with Lord John Rvissell on the 18th day of that 
month. 

This government insists, as all the world might have known that it 
must and would under all circumstances insist, on the integrity of the 
Union as the chief element of national life. Since, after trials of every 
form of forbearance and conciliation, it has been rendered ceilnin and 
apparent that this paramount and vital object (;an be saved only by 
our acceptance of civil war as an indispensable condition, that con- 
dition, with all its hazards and deplorable evils, has not been declined. 
The acceptance, however, is attended with a strong desire and fixed 
purpose that the war shall be as short and accompanied by as little 
suffering as possible. Foreign intervention, aid, or sympathy in favor 
of the insurgents, especially on the part of Great Britain, manifestly 
could only protract and aggravate the war. Accordingly, Mr. Dallas, 
under instructions from the President, in an interview conceded to 
him by the British secretary of state for foreign affairs, i^resented our 
i:>rotest against awj such intervention. 

Lord John Russell answered with earnestness that there was not in 
the British government the least desire to grasp at any advantages 
which might be supposed to arise from the unpleasant domestic dilfer- 
ences in the United States, but, on the contrarj^, that they would be 
highl,y gratified if those differences were adjusted and the Union 
restored to its former unbroken position. 

Mr. Dallas then, as he reported to iis, endeavored to impress upon 
his lordshii? how important it must be that Great Britain and France 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 37 

should abstain, at least for a considerable time, from doing what, by 
eueonraging groundless hopes (of the insurgents), would widen a 
breacli still thought capable of being closed; but his lordship seemed 
to think that the matter was not ripe for decision one way or another, 
and remarked that what he had already said was all that at present it 
was in his power to say. 

Upon this report you were instructed to inform her Britannic Maj- 
esty's government that the President regarded the reply made by his 
lordshij) to Mr. Dallas's suggestion as possibly indicating a ijolicy 
which this government would be obliged to deem injurious to its rights 
and derogating from its dignity. This government thought the reply 
of the secretary unjustifiably abrupt and reserved. That abruptness 
and reserve unexplained left us under a seeming necessitj' of inferring 
that the British government might be contemplating a policj^ of 
encouragement to the insurgents which would widen the breach here, 
which we believed it possible to heal if such encouragement should 
not be extended. A vital interest obliged the Ignited States to seek 
exj^lanation or to act on the inference it thus felt itself obliged to 
adopt. 

Your despatch of the 21st of May (No. 2), which has just been 
received, shows how 3^ou have acquitted yourself of the duty imposed 
upon you. After stating our complaint to his lordship, you very 
properly asked an elucidation of his meaning in the reply to which 
exception had been taken l)y us, and veiy rightl^^ as we think, asked 
whether it was the intention of her Majesty's ministers to adoj^t a 
policj^ which would have the effect to widen, if not to make irrepa- 
rable, a breach which we believe yet to be entirely manageable by our- 
selves. His lordship disclaimed any such intention. A friendl}* 
argument, however, then arose between the secretary and yourself 
concerning what should be the form of the answer to us which his 
lordship could proj^erly give, and which would at tlie same time be 
satisfactory to this government. The question was finally solved in 
the most generous manner bj^ the proposition of his lordship that he 
would instruct Lord Lj^ons to give such a reply to the President as 
might, in his own opinion, be satisfactory, which proposition you 
accepted. 

I hasten to say, bj- direction of the President, that j^our course in 
this j)roceeding is fully apijroved. This government has no disposi- 
tion to lift questions of even national pride or sensibility uf) to the 
level of diplomatic controversy, because it earnestly and al'dently 
desires to maintain peace, harmony, and cordial friendship with 
Great Britain. Lord John Russell's proposition, by authorizing the 
President to put the most favorable construction possible upon the 
response which was deemed exceptionable, removes the whole diffi- 
culty without waiting for tlie intervention of Lord Lyons. You will 
announce this conclusion to Lord .John Russell, and inform him that 
the settlenient of the affair in so friendly a spirit affords this govern- 
ment sincere satisfaction. 

Your conversation with the British secretary incidentally Ijrought 
into debate the Queen's late proclamation (which seems to us designed 
to raise the insurgents to the level of a belligerent state), the language 
emploj^ed by her Majesty's ministers in both houses of Parliament, 
the tone of the public press, and of private opinion, and especially a 
speech of the lord chancellor, in which he had characterized the insur- 
gents as a belligerent State, and the civil war which they are waging 
against the United States asjustum heUum. 



38 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

The opinions which yon expressed on these matters, and their obvions 
tendency to enconrage the insurrection and to protract and aggravate 
the civil war, are jnst, and meet our approbation. At the same time, it 
is tlie purpose of this government, if j)ossible, consistently witli the 
national welfare and honor, to have no serious controversy with Great 
Britain at all; and if this shall ultimately prove impossible, then to 
have both the defensive position and the clear right on our side. With 
this vieAv, this government, as yon were made aware by mj' despatch 
No. 10, has determined to pass over without official complaint the 
publications of the British press, manifestations of adverse individual 
opinion in social life, and the speeches of British statesmen, and even 
those of her Majestj^'s ministers in Parliament, so long as they are not 
authoritatively adopted by her Majesty's government. We honor and 
respect the freedom of debate and the freedom of the press. We in- 
dulge no apprehensions of danger to our rights and interests from any 
discussion to which they may be subjected, in either form, in any 
place. Sure as we are that the transaction now going on in our country 
involves the progress of civilization and humanity, and equally sui'e 
that our attitude in it is right, and no less sure that our press and our 
statesmen are equal in ability and influence to any in Europe, we shall 
have no cause to grieve if Great Britain shall leave to us the defence 
of the independence of nations and the rights of human nature. 

M3' despatch No. 14 presented four distinct grounds on which this 
government appreliended a policy on the part of her Majesty's govern- 
ment to intervene in favor of the insurgents, or to lend them aid and 
sympathj^ The first ground was the reserve practiced l)y the British 
secretai'y for foreign affairs in his conversation with Mr. Dallas, 
referred to in the earliei' part of this despatch. I have already stated 
that the explanations made and ottered by Lord John Russell have 
altogether removed this ground from debate. 

The second was the contracting of an engagement by the government 
of Great Britain with that of France, without consulting us, to the 
effect that both governments would adopt one and the same course of 
13roceeding in regard to the subject of intervention in our domestic 
affairs. You were informed in my despatch No. 10 that, as this pro- 
ceeding did not necessarily imply hostile feelings towards the United 
States, we should not formalh^ complain of it, but should rest content 
with a resolution to hold intercourse onlj^ with each of those States 
severally, giving due notice to both that the circumstance that a con- 
cert between the two powers in an^^ proposition each might offer to 
us would not modify in the least degree the action of the United States 
ui3on it. 

The third ground was Lord John RusselFs announcement to Mr. 
Dallas that he was not unwilling to I'eceive the so-called comnnssioners 
of the insurgents unofficially. On this point you already have instruc- 
tions, to which nothing need now be added. 

The fourth ground is the Queen's proclamation, exceptionable first 
for the circumstances under which it was issued and, secondl}^ for 
the matter of that important state paper. 

My despatch No. 11 apprised you of our reason for expecting a direct 
communication on this subject from her Majesty's government. I 
reserve instructions on this fourth ground, as I did in that despatch, 
expecting to discuss it fully when the promised direct communication 
shall bring it authoritativel}^ before this government in the form chosen 
by the British government itself. 

My silence on the subject of the defence of that proclamation made 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 89 

by Lord John Russell in his conversation with yon being grounded on 
that motive for delay, it is hardly necessary to say that we are not to 
be regarded as conceding any jjositions which his lordship assumed, 
and which you so ably contested on the occasion referred to in your 
despatch. Your argument on that point is approved by the President. 

The British government having committed the subject of the pro- 
posed modifications of international law on the subject of the right 
of neutrals in maritime war to Lord Lyons before you were prepared 
by our instructions to present the subject to that government, no 
objection is now seen to the discussion of that matter here. No com- 
munication on any subject herein discussed has yet been received 
from Lord Lyons. Despatches wiiich you must have received before 
this time will have enabled you to give entire satisfaction to his lord- 
ship concerning the blockade. We claim to have a right to close the 
ports which have been seized by insurrectionists, for the ijurpose of 
suppressing the attempted revolution, and no one could justly com- 
plain if we had done so decisively and peremptorily. In resorting to 
the milder and very lenient form of the blockade we have been gov- 
erned by a desire to avoid imposing hardships unnecessarily onerous 
upon foreign as w^ell as domestic commerce. The President's i^rocla- 
mation was a notice of the intention to blockade, and it was provided 
that ample warning should be given to vessels aj)proaching and ves- 
sels seeking to leave the blockaded i)orts before capture should be 
allowed. The l)lockade from the time it takes effect is everywhere 
rendered actual and effective. 

Your remarks on the subject of the late tariff law were judicious. 
The subject of revenue policy in the altered condition of affairs is 
not unlikely to receive the attention of Congress. 

We are gratified by the information you have given us of the 
friendly spirit which has thus far marked the deportment and con- 
versation of the British government in your official intercourse with it. 
I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &-c., &r., ch-. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 

London, Jiuie <s,j.stn. 
Dear Sir: I send herewith a copy of the London Times of this 
morning containing an account of the termination of Mr. Gregory's 
movement. 

Subsequent events only can now do anything to improve the i^ros- 
pect of the confederates at this court. Yours, &e., 

C. F. ADAMS. 
Hon. W. H. Seward, Washington, D. C. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 

[Extracts.] 

No. 8.] Legation of the United States, 

London, June IJf, 1861. 
Sir: I have to acknowledge the reception of j^our despatches Xo. 10, 
dated the 21st of May, and No. 11, dated on the 24th, with a copy of 



40 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

a letter from Mr. O. Vandeuburgli, and also a printed circular from 
the department of the 2()th of May, relating- to purchases made here 
of articles contraband of war. 

The intelligence of the feeling expressed in America upon the recep- 
tion of the (Queen's proclamation was fully expected l)y me, so that it 
excited no surprise, and much of the course of your argument in youi- 
despatch will be found to have been already adopted in mj- conference 
with Lord John Russell, an account of which is before this time in 
your hands. 

* ■«• ■;;- * '/c •::- * 

However this ma}' l)e, m^' duty was plain. I applied for an inter- 
view with Lord John Russell, and he appointed one for ten o'clock on 
Wednesda}', the 12th, at his own house. After some slight prelimi- 
nary talk, I observed to him that I had been instructed to ftress upon 
her Majesty's government the expediency of early action on the sulv 
ject of privateering; that in the present state of excitement in the 
ITnited States consequent upon the measures which it had felt it nec- 
essary to adopt, I did not know of anything which would be so likely 
to allay it as an agreement on this point. His lordship then sahl that 
lie did not know whether I knew it, but the fact was that Mr. Dayton 
had made a proposition to France for negotiation on the basis of the 
articles as agreed upon in Paris. France had communicated the fact 
through her minister, the Compte de Flahault, and he intimated that 
there had been a cabinet conversation on the subject without arriving 
at a decision. I then referred to what had j)assed at onr former inter- 
view. I mentioned m^' j)roposal to negotiate, and the inclination 
shown by his lordship to leave the subject with Lord L^'ons, with 
authority to arrange the only ijoint in dispute as the government at 
Washington might desire. There I had left the matter. His lordship 
replied that he did not mean to be quite so understood. His intention 
was to say that, having agreed upon the thi'ee articles, he should be 
readj' to consent to the total omission of the fourth article, if that 
would be agreeable at Washington. I said that I had not so under- 
stood him, and from mj' j)i'esent recollection I am confident that my 
report of his language was not incorrect. 

^ ^: * Hs :!= * * 

I next approached the most delicate portion of mj- task. I descanted 
upon the irritation produced in America by the Queen's proclamation, 
upon the construction almost universally given to it, as designed to aid 
the insurgents by raising them to the rank of a belligerent State, and 
upon the very decided tone taken by the Presid(-nt in my despatches, 
in case any such design was really entertained. I added that from 
my own observation of what had since occurred here T had not been 
able to convince mj'self of the existence of such a design, but it was 
not to be disguised that the fact of the continued stay of the pseudo 
commissioners in this city, and, still more, the knowledge that they 
had been admitted to more or less interviews with his lordship, was 
calculated to excite uneasiness; indeed, it had already given great 
dissatisfaction to my government. I added as moderately as I could 
that, in all frankness, any further protraction of this relation could 
scarcely fail to be viewed by us as hostile in spirit and to require some 
coiresj)onding action accordingly. 

His lordship then reviewed the course of Great Britain. He ex- 
plained the mode in which they had consulted with France, jDrior to 
any action at all, as to the reception of the deputation from the so- 
called Confederate States. It had been the custom, both in France 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 41 

and here, to receive sneh persons unofficially for a long time back. 
Poles, Hungarians, Italians, etc., ttc, had been allowed interviews to 
hear what thej^ had to say, but tliis did not imply recognition in their 
case any more than in ours, lie added that he had seen the gentle- 
men once some time ago and once more some time since; he had no 
expectation of seeing them any more. 

* -;'r -» -X- v> % -X- 

1 shall continue my relations here until 1 discover some action appar- 
ently in conflict with it or receive specific orders from the department 
dictating an op]3osite course. 

I ventured to repeat my regret that the proclamation had been so 
hastily issued, and adverted to the fact that it seemed contrary to the 
agreement said to have been proposed by Mr. Dallas and concurred in 
by his lordship, to postpone all action until 1 should arrive, possessed 
with all the views of the new administration. But still, though 1 felt 
that much mischief had ensued in the ci'eation of prejudices in the 
United States, not now easy to be eradicated, 1 was not nn^self dis- 
posed in any part of my conduct to aggravate the evil. My views 
had been much modified Iw opportunities of more extended conversa- 
tion with persons of weight in Great Britain, by the imi)roved tone of 
the press, by subsequent explanations in Parliament, by the prohibi- 
tion of all attempts to introduce prizes into British ports, and, lastly, 
by the unequivocal expression of sentiment in the case of Mr. Gregory, 
when the time came for him to press his motion of recognition. I 
trusted that nothing new might occnr to change the current again, 
for nothing was so unfortunate as the effect of a recnrrence of recipro- 
cal irritations, however triiiing, l)etween countries, in breaking up 
the good understanding which it was always desirable to preserve. 

His lordship agreed to this, but remarked that he conld not l)ut think 
the complaint of the proclamation, though natural enough perhaps at 
this moment, was reall}^ ill founded. He went over the ground once 
more which he occupied in the former interview — the necessity of 
doing something to relieve the officers of their ships from the responsi- 
bility of treating these persons as pirates if they met them on the seas. 
For his part, he could not believe the United States would persevere 
in the idea of hanging them, for it was not in consonance with their 
well-known cliaracter. But what would be their own situation if they 
should be found practicing ujwn a harsher system than the Americans 
themselves? 

Here was a very [urge territory — a number of States — and' people 
counted by millions, who were in a state of actual war. The fact was 
undeniable and the embarrassment unavoidable. Under such cir- 
cumstances the law officers of the crown advised the policy which had 
l)een adopted. It was designed only as a preventive to inimediate 
evils. The United States should not have thought hard of it. They 
meant to be entirely neutral. 

1 replied that we asked no more than that. We desired no assist- 
ance. Our objection to this act was that it was x^ractically not an act 
of neutrality. It had depressed the spirits of the friends of the gov- 
ernment, it had raised the courage of the insurgents. We construed 
it as adNcrse, because we could not see the necessit}' of such immedi- 
ate haste. These people were not a navigating people. Thej' had not 
a ship on the ocean. They had made no prizes, so far as I knew, 
excepting such as they had caught by surprises. Even now, I could 
not learn that they had fitted out anything more than a few old steam- 
boats, uttei'ly unable to make any cruise on the ocean, and scarcely 



42 NEUTRALITY (>F GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

strong enoiigii to bear a cannon of any calibre. But it was useless to 
go over this any more. The thing was now clone. All that we could 
hope was that the later explanations would counteract the worst 
effects that we had reason to apprehend from it, and, at any rate, 
there was one compensation, the act had released the government of 
the United States from responsibility for any misdeeds of the rebels 
towards Great Britain. If any of their peoi^le should capture or mal- 
treat a British vessel on the ocean the reclamation must be made oidy 
upon those who had authorized the wrong. The United States would 
not be liable. 

I added that I could not close the interview without one word upon 
a subject on which I had no instructions. I saw by the newspapers 
an account of a considerable movement of troops to Canada. In our 
situation this would naturally excite attention at home, and I was 
therefore desirous to learn whether thej' were ordered with any refer- 
ence to possible difficulties with us. His lordship said that the coun- 
trj^ had been denuded of troops for some time back, and it was 
regarded only as a proper measure of precaution, in the present dis- 
ordered condition of things in the I'uited States, to restore a j)art of 
them. He said he did not know but what we might do something. 
He intimated a little feeling of uneasiness at the mission of Mr. Ash- 
mun, without any notice given to them of his purposes, and he like- 
wise said something about a threat uttered by yourself to Lord Lyons 
to seize a British vessel on Lake Ontario without ceremony. To this I 
replied that inasmuch as I had understood Mr. Ashinun's mission had 
been made known to the governor of Canada it did not seem to me that 
it could l)e of much concealed significance, and that as to the other 
matter, if there was any reality in the threat, it surely was an odd 
way of proceeding to furnish at once the warning in time to provide 
against its execution. 

* * :;< ^ * * ♦ 

I did not touch at all on the subject of the blockade, as referred to 
in your despatch No. 10, for the reason that I do not now understand 
the government as disposed in any way to (juestion its validity or to 
obstruct it. On the contrary, his lordshij), incidentally referring to 
it in this interview, said that instructions had been sent out to the 
naval officers in comnumd to respect it, and never themselves to seek 
to enter any of the ports blockaded, unless from some urgent necessity 
to protect British persons or ijroperty. 

I have the honor to be, sii-, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRAXCIS ADAMS. 



J//-. Heicard io Mr. Adcons. 

Xo. 2L] Department of State, 

WasJiington, June 19, 1861. 

Sir: On the loth day of June instant, Lord Lyons, the British min- 
ister, and Mr. Mercier, the French minister, residing here, had an 
ajDpointed interview with me. Each of those representatives proposed 
to read to me an instruction which he had received from his govern- 
ment, and to deliver me a copj* if I should desire it. I answered that 
in the present state of the correspondence between their respective 
governments and that of the United States I deemed it my duty to 
know the characters and effects of the instructions, respectively, 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 43 

before I could consent that tliey should be officially communicated to 
this department. The ministers therefore, confidentially and very 
frankly, submitted the papers to me for preliniinarj^ inspection. After 
having examined them so far as to understand their purport, I declined 
to hear them read or to receive official notice of them. 

I proceed now to give you our reasons for this course, that you may, 
if you find it necessarj^ or expedient, communicate them to the 
government of Great Britain. 

When we received official information that an understanding was 
existing between the British and French governments that they woidd 
take one and the same course concerning the insurrection which has 
occurred in this countrj^, involving the question of recognizing the 
independence of a revolutionary organization, we instructed you to 
inform the British government that we had expected from both of 
those powers a different course of proceeding. We added, however, 
that insomuch as the proposed concert of action between them did not 
necessarily imply any unfriendliness of pur]30se or of disposition, we 
should not complain of it, but that we should insist in this case, as 
in all others, on dealing with each of those powers alone, and that 
their agi'eement to act together would not at all affect the course 
which we should pursue. Adhering to this decision, we have not 
made the concert of the two i^owers a ground of objection to the 
reading of the instruction with which liOrd Lyons was charged. 

That paj)er purports to contain a decision at which the British gov- 
ernment has arrived, to the effect that this countrj' is divided into 
two belligerent parties, of which this government represents one and 
that Great Britain assumes the attitude of a neutral between them. 

This government could not consistently, with a just regard for the 
sovereignty of the United States, permit itself to debate these novel 
and extraordinary positions with the government of her Britannic 
Majesty; much less can we consent that that government shall 
announce to us a decision derogating from that sovereignty, at which 
it has arrived without previously conferring with us upon the ques- 
tion. The United States are still solely and exclusively sovereign 
within the territories they have lawfully acquired and long possessed, 
as they have always been. They are at peace with all the world, as, 
with unimportant exceptions, they have always been. They are liv- 
ing under the obligations of the law of nations and of treaties with 
Great Britain just the same now as heretofore. They are, of course, 
the friend of Great Britain and they insist that Great Britain shall 
remain their friend now just as she has hitherto been. Great Britain 
by virtue of these relations is a stranger to parties and sections in this 
country, whether they are loyal to the United States or not, and Great 
Britain can neither rightfully qualify the sovereignty of the Ignited 
States nor concede, nor recognize any rights or interests, or power of 
any party, State, or section, in contravention to the unbroken sover- 
eignty of the federal Union. What is now seen in this country is the 
occurrence, bj^ no means peculiar, but frequent in all countries, 
more frequent even in Great Bi-itain than here, of an armed insur- 
rection engaged in attempting to overthrow the regularly constituted 
and established government. There is, of course, the emploj'ment of 
force by the government to suppress the insurrection, as every other 
government necessarily employs force in such cases. But these inci- 
dents by no means constitute a state of war impairing the sovereignty 
of the government, creating belligerent sections, and entitling foreign 
States to intervene or to act as neutrals between them, or in anj- other 



44 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

way to cast off their lawful obligations to the nation thns for the 
moment disturbed. Any other principle than this would be to resolve 
government everywhere into a thing of accident and caprice, and ulti- 
mately all human society into a state of perpetual war. 

We do not go into any argument of fact or of law m support of the 
positions we have thus assumed. They are simply the suggestions of 
the instinct of self-defence, the primary law of human action, not 
more the law of individual than of national life. 

This government is sensible of the importance of the step it takes in 
declining to ]'eceive the communication in question. It hopes and 
believesr however, that it need not disturb the good relations which 
have hitherto subsisted between the two countries which, more than 
any other nations, have need to live together in harmony and friend- 
ship. 

We believe that Great Britain has acted inadvertently, and under 
the influence of apprehensions of danger to her commerce, whicli 
either are exaggerated or call for fidelity on her part to her habitual 
relations to the United States, instead of a hasty attempt to change 
those relations. 

Certainly this government has exerted itself to the utmost to pre- 
vent Great Britaiii from falling into the error of supposing that the 
United States could consent to any abatement of their sovereignty in 
the present emergency. It is, we take leave to think, the common 
misfortune of the two countries that Gieat Britain was not content to 
wait, before despatching the instruction in question, until you had 
been received by her Majesty's government, and had submitted the 
entirely just, friendly, and liberal overtures Avith which you were 
charged. 

Altliough the paper implies, without aflirming, that the insurgents of 
this country possess some belligerent rights, it does not name, specify, 
or indicate one such riglit. It confines itself to stating what the Brit- 
ish government require or expect the United States to do. Virtually, 
it asks us to concede to Great Britain the principles laid down in the 
declaration of tlie congress held at Paris in 1856. It asks, indeed, a 
little less; certainly nothing more or different from this. The British 
government ask this of us to-day, the loth of June, in ignorance of 
the fact that we had, so early as tlie 25th of April, instructed you to 
tender, without reservation, to Great Britain our accession, pure and 
simple, to that declaration. We have all the while, since that instruc- 
tion was sent forth, been ready, as we now are ready, to accede to the 
declaration where and whenever Great Britain may be ready and will- 
ing to receive it. The argument contained in the instruction seems, 
therefore, to have been as unnecessary and irrelevant as it is unac- 
ceptable. Lord Lyons thinks that his instructions do not authorize 
him to enter into convention with us here. You will inform the gov- 
ernment of Great Britain of the fact, and, if they prefer, you will 
enter into the convention at London. 

Of course it is understood that the concessions herein made do not 
affect or impair the right of the United States to suppress the insur- 
rection as well by maritime as by land operations, and for tliis pur- 
pose to exclude all commerce from such of the ports as may have 
fallen into the hands of the insurgents, either by closing the ports 
directly or by the more lenient means of a blockade, which we have 
already adopted. 

It is thus seen that, in the present case, there is only an embarrass- 
ment resulting from the similar designs of the two governments to 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR, 45 

reach one common object by different courses without knowledge of 
each other's dispositions in tliat respect. There is nothing more. We 
proj)Ose, as a nation at peace, to give to Great Britain as a friend 
what she as a neutral demands of us, a nation at war. We rejoice 
that it happens so. We are anxious to avoid all causes of misunder- 
standing with Great Britain; to draw closer, instead of breaking, the 
existing bonds of amity and friendship. There is nothing good or 
great which botli nations may not exiject to attain or effect if the}' 
may i-emaiu friends. It would be a hazardous day for both the 
branches of the British race when they should determine to try how 
much harm each could do the other. 

We do not forget that, although thus happily avoiding misunder- 
standing on the present occasion. Great Britain may in some way 
hereafter do us wrong or injury by adhering to the speculative views 
of the rights and duties of the two governments which she has pro- 
posed to express. But we believe her to be sincere in the good wishes 
for our welfare which she has so constantly avowed, and we will not, 
therefore, suffer ourselves to anticipate occasions for difference which, 
now that both nations fully understand each other, may be averted or 
avoided. 

One point remains. The British government while declining, out of 
regard to our natural sensibility, to propose mediation for the settle- 
ment of the differences which now unhappily divide the American 
people, have nevertheless expressed, in a very jiroper manner, their 
willingness to undertake the kindly duty of mediation if we should 
desire it. The President expects you to say on this point to the Brit- 
isli government that we apj)reciate this generous and friendly demon- 
stration, but that we cannot solicit or accept mediation from an}^ even 
the most friendly, quarter. The conditions of society here, the char- 
acter of our government, the exigencies of the country forbid that any 
dispute arising among us should ever be referred to foreign arbitra- 
tion. We are a republican and American people. The Constitution 
of our government furnishes all needful means for the correction or 
removal of any possible political evil. Adhering strictl}' as we do to 
its directions, we shall surmount all our present complications and 
preserve the government complete, perfect, and sound for the benefit 
of future generations. But the integrity of any nation is lost and its 
fate becomes doubtful whenever strange hands and instruments 
unknown to the Constitution are employed to perform the proper 
functions of the people, established by the organic laws of the State. 

Hoping to have no occasion hereafter to speak for the hearing of 
friendly nations upon the topic which I have now discussed, I add a 
single remark by way of satisfying the British government that it Avill 
do wisely by leaving us to manage and settle this domestic controversy^ 
in our own waj'. 

The fountains of discontent in any society are many, and some lie 
much deeper than others. Thus far this unhappy controversy has dis- 
turbed only those which ai-e nearest the surface. There are others 
which lie still deeper that may yet remain, as we hope, long undis-, 
turbed. If tliej^ should be i-eached, no one can tell how or when thej^ 
could be closed. It was foreign intervention that opened, and that alone 
could open, similar fountains in the memorable French revolution. 
I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles F. Adams, dr., <£r., &c. 



46 NEUTKALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR, 

M)-. Adams to Mr. Seircn-cL 

[Extracts.] 

No. !».] Legation of the United States, 

London, June '^1, 1861. 
Sir: * ******* 

I have not cleeined it necessary to ask a special interview to com- 
municate to Lord John Russell tiie sense entertained by the President 
of the manner of my reception here, as directed in yours of tlie 3d of 
June. Presuming it to be altogetlier likely that another despatcli, pre- 
pared after the reception of my No. 2, is now near at hand, I have pre- 
ferred to wait and see if that may not give me other matter to submit 
at the same time. 

The intelligence received from the United States of the effect pro- 
duced by the" reception of the Queen's proclamation has not been with- 
out its influence upon opinion here. Whilst people of all classes 
unite in declaring that such a measure was unavoidable, they are 
equally earnest in disavowing any inferences of want of good will 
which may liave l)een drawn from it. Tliey affect to consider our com- 
plaints as ver3^ unreasonable, and are profuse in their professions of 
sympathy with the government in its present struggle. This is, cer- 
tainly, a very great change from the tone prevailing when I first arrived. 
It is partly to l)e ascribed to tlie accounts of the progress of the war, but 
still more to the publications in the London Times of the letters of its 
special correspondent. There is no longer any floating doul)t of the 
capacity of the government to sustain itself, or any belief that the 
insurgents will make their own terms of accommodation. The idea 
still remains quite general that there will never be any actual conflict, 
and it is connected in many cases with an apprehension that the reun- 
ion may l)e cemented upon the basis of hostile measures against Great 
Britain. Indeed, such has been the motive hinted at by more than 
one person of inflnence as guiding the policy of the President himself. 
Whenever such a suggestion has been made to me, I have been care- 
ful to discountenance it altogether, and to affirm that the struggle was 
carried on in good faith, and from motives not subject to be affected 
by mere considerations of policy, or Ijy temporary emotions. More 
especially have I endeavored to disavow any " arriere pensee " Avhich 
has the effect to confirm the suspicion of our sincerit}-, I regret to say, 
by far too much disseminated. * * * * 

* * ****** 

I am now earnestlj^ assured on all sides that the sympathy with the 
government of the United States is general; that the indignation felt 
in America is not founded in reason; that the British desire only to 
be perfectly neutral, giving no aid nor comfort to the insurgents. I 
believe that this sentiment is now growing to be universal. It inspires 
her Majesty's ministers, and is not without its effect on the opposition. 
Neither party would be so bold as to declare its sympathy with a 
cause based upon the extension of slaver^', for that would at once 
draw upon itself the indignation of the great body of the people. But 
the development of a positive spirit in the opposite direction will 
depend far more upon the degree in which the arm of the government 
enforces obedience than upon any absolute affinity in sentiments. 
Our brethren in this country, after all, are much disposed to fall in 
Avith the opinion of \'oltaire, that " Dieu est tou jours sur le cote des 



NEUTRALITY OF (IRE AT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 47 

gros canous." General Scott and aii effective blockading squadron 
will be the true agents to keep the peace aV)road, as well as to con- 
quer one at home. In the meanwhile the self-styled commissioners 
of the insurgents have transferred their labors to Paris, where, I am 
told, tliey give out what they could not venture publicly to say here, 
that tliis government will recognize them as a State. The prediction 
may be verified, it is true; but it is not now likely to happen under 
any other condition than the preceding assent of the I'nited States. 
I have the honor to be your obedient servant, 

C7TARLES FRANCIS AD A:\1S. 
Hon. William II. Seward, 

Secrefarji of Sfaf(\ 



Mr. Adams fo Mr. Seirard. 

I Extracts. | 

No. 10. J Legation of the United States, 

London, June 28, 1861. 

Sir: * * * * * * 

My interview with his lordship was intended only to express to him 
the views entertained b}^ the President, as communicated to me in 
your despatches Xo. 14 and No. 15 of the reports made by me of our 
first conference. His lordship said that he had just received de- 
spatches as late as the loth communicating the same information, and 
that Lord Lyons had learned, through another member of the diplo- 
matic corps, that no further expression of opinion on the subject in 
(piestion Avould be necessary. This led to the nn)st fi'ank and pleas- 
ant conversation wliicli I have yet had with Ids lordship, in wliich we 
reviewea the various points of difticnlty that had arisen in a manner 
too desultory' to admit of reporting, excepting in tlic genei'al result. 
•>:- a -X- w * -K- « 

I added that I believed the popular feeling in the United States would 
subside the moment that all the later action on this side was known. 
There was but a single drawl)ack remaining, which was what I could 
not but regard as the inopportune despatch of the Great Eastern with 
the troops for Canada. He said that this was a mei'e precaution 
against times of trouble. 

His lordshi}) then said sometliing about difficulties in New (4ranada, 
and tJie intelligence that the insurgents liad undertaken to close sev- 
eral of tlieir ports. But the law officers here told him that this could 
not be done as against foreign nations, excepting by the regular form 
of blockade. He did not know what we thought about it, but he had 
observed that some such plan was said to l)e likely to ])e adojjted at 
the coming meeting of Congress in regard to the ports of those whom 
we considered as insurgents. I replied that sucli was one of tlie sev- 
eral projects re])orted at the last session of Congress, to whicli I was 
a member, but I had heard some serious constitutional objections 
raised against it. My own opinion was that the blockade would be 
persevered in, wliich would obviate all difficulty. 

On the whole, I think I can say that the I'elations of the two coun- 
tries are gradually returning to a more friendly condition. My own 
reception has been all that I could desire. I attach value to tliis, 



48 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE OlYTL WAR. 

however, only as it indicates the establishment of a policy that wili 
keep us at xieace during the continuance of the present convulsion. 
I have the honoi' to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William II. Seward, 

Secretary of Siaie, Washington, D. C. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. A<J(nns. 

Xo. ?r2.~\ Department of State, 

Washington, Jutij 1, 1861. 

Sir: Your despatch No. s (dated June 14) has been received. 

M}^ despatch, No. 21, of l!)th ultimo, has anticipated the matter j'ou 
have discussed in the paper before me. It remains only to say that 
while we would prefer to add 31r. Marey's amendment, exempting- 
private propertj' of non-belligerents from confiscation in maritime war, 
and desire you to stipulate to that effect if you can, ^-et we are, never- 
theless, ready and willing to accede to the declaration of the congress 
of Paris, if the amendment cannot be obtained. In other words, we 
stand on the instructions contained in my aforesaid despatch. 

We, as 3^ou are well aware, have everj'^ desire for a good under- 
standing with the British government. It causes us no concern that 
the government sends a naval force into the Gulf and a military forces 
into Canada. We can have no designs hostile to Great Britain so 
long as she does not, officially' or unofllciallj^ recognize the insurgents 
or render them aid or sympathy. We regard the measures of pre- 
caution on her part, to which I have alluded, as consequences of the 
misunderstanding of our rights and her own real relation towards us 
that she seemed precipitatelj^ to adopt, before she heard the communi- 
cation with which j^ou were charged on our behalf. These conse- 
quences may be inconvenient to herself, but are not all occasion of 
irritation to the United States. Under present circumstances, the 
more effectually Great Britain guards her po.ssessions and her com- 
merce in this quarter the better we shall be satisfied. If she should 
change her course and do us any injury, which we have not the least 
idea now that she purposes to do, we should not be deterred from 
vindicating our rights and our unbroken sovereignty against all the 
armies and navies that she could send here. 

Before the Queen's proclamation was issued, and at the moment 
when privateers were invited and a naval force announced as being 
organized by the insurrectionists, it was reported to this government 
that the iron steamer Peerless, hing at Toronto, had been sold to 
insurgents to be used as a privateer to prey^ upon our commerce, and 
that she was, nevertheless, to pass under British pajjers and the Brit- 
ish flag down the St. Lawrence to be delivered over to a pirate com- 
mander in the open sea. It was said that the governor general 
declined to interfere. I asked Lord Lyons to request the governor 
general of Canada to look into the facts and prevent the departure of 
the vessel if he should find the report to be true. Lord Lyons 
answered that he had no authority to do so. I then said that I should 
direct our naval forces to seize and detain the vessel if they should 
have good reason to believe the facts reported to be true, and to refer 
the parties interested to this government. I did this at once, and his 
lordship jDrotested. Afterwards, as we understand, the governor gen- 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 49 

eral did interfere, and the Peerless was prevented from sailing nntil 
the danger of her being converted into a pirate was prevented. Here 
the matter ended. Certainly the British government could not expect 
us to permit the St. Lawrence to become a harbor for buccaneers. 
Had the vessel been seized or detained we should at once have avowed 
the act and tendered any satisfaction to the British government if it 
should appear that the character of the vessel had been misunderstood. 

Mr. Ashmun went to Canada to watch and prevent just such trans- 
actions as the sale or fitting out of the Peerless for a pirate would 
have been. It was not supposed that his visit there would be thought 
objectionable, or could give any uneasiness to the British government. 
Lord Lyons here viewed the subject in a different light and complained 
of it. I instantly recalled Mr. Ashmun. 

These are the two grievances presented to j^ou by Lord John Rus- 
sell. I trust that the British government will be satisfied that in 
both cases we were only taking care that the peace of the two countries 
should not be disturbed through the unlawful action of covetous and 
ill-disposed persons on the border which separates them. 

I conclude with the remark that the British government can never 
expect to induce the United States to acquiesce in her assumed posi- 
tion of this government as divided in any degree into two powers for 
war more than for peace. At the same time, if her Majesty's govern- 
ment shall continue to practice absolute forbearance from any inter- 
ference in our domestic affairs we shall not be cai)tious enough to 
inquire what name it gives to that forbearance or in what character it 
presents itself before the British nation in doing so. We hold our- 
selves entitled to regard the forbearance as an act of a friendly power 
acting unconsciousl}' of a domestic disturbance among ns, of which 
friendly States can take no cognizance. On this point our views are 
not likely to undei-go any change. In maintaining this position we 
are sure we do nothing derogating from the dignity of the British gov- 
ernment, while we inflexibly maintain and iDreserve the just rights 
and the honor of the United States. 

I am, sir, respectfully, j^our obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 



[Extract.] 



No. 14.] Legation of the United States, 

London, July 12, 1861. 

Sir: Your despatches, from No. 2 to No. 25, inclusive, were received 
at this office early in the present week. 

I have read the first of these papers, containing further instructions 
to me and dated on the 21st of June, with close attention. My pre- . 
vailing feeling has been one of profound surprise at the course of this 
government throughout the present difficulty. First. It preijares, in 
the form of an instruction to Lord Lyons, a paper to be presented to 
you, among other things "virtually asking you to concede the prin- 
ciples laid down in the declaration of the congress held in Paris in 
1856." Secoudl}^ When in obedience to my instructions I propose to 

S. Doc. 18 4 



5U NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

offer a project to Lord John Russell, actually designed to do the very 
thing- desired, I am told the directions have already been sent out to 
Lord Lyons to arrange the matter on the basis proposed by the Ameri- 
can government of the three articles, omitting the fourth altogether. 
Thirdly. Lord Lyons expresses the opinion to j^ou that his instruc- 
tions do not authorize him to enter into a convention with you in the 
United States. Fourthly. When, concurrently with these events, Mr. 
Dayton proposes to negotiate on the same basis with France, I am 
informed tlmt this proposal has been communicated to the ministry 
here, and that no definite conclusion had been arrived at. I must 
say that a more remarkable series of misunderstandings has seldom 
come within my observation. 

I now propose to bring this matter to a distinct issue. To this end 
I have addressed a letter to Lord John Russell, to know whether, 
under the renewed instructions of the present despatch, he is disposed 
to oj)en the negotiation here. The advantage of this will be that T 
shall get an answer in writing, which will admit of no misconception. 
A copy of that answer will be forwarded so soon as it is received. 
******* 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon, William H. Seward, (&c., &c., &c. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seiuard. 

No. 17.] Legation of the United States, 

London, July 19, 1861. 

Sir: Your despatch. No. 32, dated the 1st of Jul}-, relating to the 
communications between the two governments respecting the declara- 
tion of the convention at Paris, in 1856, reached me soon after I had 
addressed a formal letter to Lord John Russell, designed to bring the 
matter to a definite point. In my No. 14, dated on the 12th, I stated 
the fact that I had sent such a letter, and I promised that I would 
forward his lordship's answer so soon as it should be received. I now 
transmit copies of my letter and of the answer. 

It is not a little singular that his lordship's memory of what passed 
at our first interview on this subject should differ so widely from 
mine. It would seem, by his account, that he had been the first to 
mention the instructions to Lord Lj^ons to ]3ropose a .negotiation on 
the subject of the declaration of Paris, and that I had thereupon 
expressed the opinion that it would be well to leave it in your hands, 
in which opinion he fully concurred. 

On my side I am quite certain that the discussion which actually 
took i^lace between us involved a wholly different class of topics of a 
very critical nature, and never touched upon the declaration of Paris 
until it had exhausted itself on the others. It was by that time late, 
and I then opened the new subject by remarking that there Avould be 
no time to do more than to allude to it at this conference. I first men- 
tioned the fact that I had instructions to propose a negotiation upon 
the disputed point of the Paris declarations and the necessary powers 
to perfect an agreement, if her Majesty's government were disposed 
to enter into it. It was this proposal that elicited the explanations of 
his lordship as to what had been already done, and the expression of 



w 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR, 51 

an opinion that the instructions sent to Lord Lyons Avere of such a 
kind as to make some agreement on your side so very likelj^ as to ren- 
der any treatment of the same matter here unadvisable, and it was 
then that I concurred in his opinion. 

As things now stand, perliaps this difference of recollection in the 
present instance may not be material. But there might be cases in 
which it would be of so much moment that I think hereafter I shall 
prefer, upon essential i)oints, to conduct the affairs of this legation a 
little more in writing than I have heretofore thought necessary. 

At the hour appointed in liis note, I waited upon his lordship for 
the first time, at his official residence in Downing street. After com- 
paring our respective remembrance of the facts in dispute, I went on 
to repeat what I maiutained I had at first proposed, to wit: That I was 
ready to negotiate if lier Majesty's goveinment were so disposed. To 
that end, I had brought my powers and also the project of a conven- 
tion, copies of botli of which papers I ottered to leave with him. He 
remarked that at this stage it was not necessary to look at the powers. 
The other one he took and examined. The first remark which he 
made was that it was essentially the declaration of Paris. He had 
never known until now that the government of the United States 
were disposed to accede to it. He was sure that I had never men- 
tioned it. To this I assented, but observed that the reason why I had 
not done so was that my government had directed me to make a pre- 
liminary inquiry, and that was to know whetlier her Majesty's minis- 
ters were disposed to enter into any negotiation at all. It was 
because of my understanding his lordship to say that he preferi'ed to 
leave the matter with Lord Lj^ons, that I had considered negotiations 
here to be declined. I had also heard, through his lordship, of a 
proiDOsition since made by Mr. Dayton on this subject to the French 
government, and which had been communicated to him, that led me 
to suppose the matter might be taking its shape at Paris. His lord- 
sliip observed that Mr. Dayton's proposal was nothing more than a 
repetition of that made by Mr. Marcy, which they w^ere not willing to 
accede to. I then said that Mr. Marcy's amendment was undoubtedly 
the first wish of my government. I also had instructions to press it, 
if there was the smallest probability of success; but I understood that 
this matter had been definitely settled. His lordship signified his 
assent to this remark, and added that I might consider the proposition 
as inadmissible. He would therefore take the copy of the project of 
a convention wliich I had offered him, for the purpose of submitting 
it to the consideration of his colleagues in the cabinet, and let me 
know when he should be ready to meet again. 

In the course of conversation I took the occasion to remark upon 
that passage of his lordship's note to me which related to the manner 
in which other states had signified their adherence to the declaration. 
I called his attention to the fact that, whatever might be tlie course 
elsewhere, the peculiar structure of our government required some 
distinct form of agreement or convention to be made with foreign 
States upon which the Senate could exercise their legitimate authority 
of confirmation or rejection. He seemed at once to understand the 
force of this observation, and to assent to the uecessity. Yet I fore- 
saw at the time the difficulty in which it would place the British 
government in its relation with the other parties to the convention at 
Paris. The reply of his lordship, this moment come to hand, a copy 
of which is lierewith submitted, explains it fully, and leaves the 
matter in the same state of suspense that it was in before. 



52 NEUTKALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN TFIE CIVIL WAR. 

Under these circumstances, and presuming it to be the wish of the 
President that no time be lost, I shall write to Mr. Dayton, at Paris, 
to know whether he considers himself authorized to proceed to con- 
clude a similar arrangement with the French government. If so, I 
shall try to go on without waiting for further instructions; if not, I 
shall hold mj^self ready to act here so soon as this difficulty shall have 
been removed elsewhere. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. Wm. H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



Mr. Adams to Lord John BiisseJl. 

Legation of the Ignited States, 

Loudon, July 11, 1861. 

My Lord: From the tenor of the last despatches received from the 
Department of State at Washington, I am led to suppose that there 
has been some misunderstanding in regard to the intentions of her 
Majesty's government respecting a proposal to negotiate upon the 
basis of the declaration of the congress held at Paris in 1856. In the 
first conversation which I had the honor to hold with your lordship, 
so long ago as the 18th of May last, in answer to an offer then made 
by mj'self, under instructions from vay government, I certainly under- 
stood your lordship to say that the subject had alread}^ been com- 
mitted to the care of Lord Lyons at Washington, with authority to 
accept the proposition of the government of the United States, adopt- 
ing three articles of the declaration at Paris, and to drop the fourth 
altogether. For this reason you preferred not to enter into the ques- 
tion on this side of the water. I am now informed that Lord Lyons 
thinks his instructions do not authorize him to enter into convention 
with the authorities at AVashington, and am instructed to apprise her 
Majesty's government of the fact. 

LTuder these circumstances, I am directed once more to renew the 
proposition here, and to say that, if agreeable to your lordship, I am 
prepared to present to your consideration a project of a convention at 
any moment which it may be convenient to you to appoint. 

Seizing the occasion to renew the assurance of my highest con- 
sideration, 

I have the honor to be your lordship's most obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

The Right Honorable Lord John Russell, 

&c., &c., &c. 



Lord John Bussell to Mr. Adams. 

Foreign Office, Jidy 13, 1861. 

Sir: I have just had the honor to receive your letter dated the 11th 

instant. In the first conversation I had the honor to hold with you, 

on the I8th of Maj% I informed you that instructions had been sent to 

Lord Lyons to propose to the government of the LTnited States to 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 53 

adopt the second, third, and fourth articles of the declaration of Paris, 
dropping the first altogether. 

You informed me that you had instructions on the same subject, 
but I understood you to express an opinion, in which I fully con- 
curred, that it would be well to leave the question in the hands of the 
Secretary of State at Wasliington. 

Lord Lyons had instructions to make an agreement with the gov- 
ernment of the United States, but he had no express authority to sign 
a convention. 

The States who have adhered to the declaration of Paris have gen- 
erally, if not invariably, done so by despatches or notes, and not hy 
corventions. 

As, however, you have been instructed to present to her Majesty's 
government for consideration a project of a convention, I shall be 
happy to see you at the foreign office at three o'clock to-day for the 
purpose of receiving that project. 

I request you to receive the assurance of my highest consideration, 
and have the honor to be, sir, your most obedient servant, 

J. RFSSELL. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., d'c, &c. 



Lord John Russell to Mr. Adams. 

Foreign Office, Jidy 18, 1861. 

Sir: Upon considering j^our propositions of Saturday last I have 
two remarks to make. 

First. The course hitherto followed has been a simple notification 
of adherence to the declaration of Paris by those states which were 
not originally parties to it. 

Secondly. The declaration of Paris was one embracing various 
powers, with a view to general concurrence upon questions of mari- 
time law, and not an insulated engagement between two powers only. 

Her Majesty's government ai'e willing to waive entirely any objec- 
tion on the first of these heads and to accept the form which the gov- 
ernment of the United States prefers. 

With regard to the second, her Majesty's government are of opinion 
that they should be assured that the United States are ready to enter 
into a similar engagement with France and Avith other maritime powers 
who are parties to the declaration of Paris, and do not purpose to 
make singly and separately a convention with Great Bi-itaiu only. 

But as much time might be required for separate communications 
between the government of the United States and all the maritime 
powers who were parties to or have acceded to the declaration of Paris, 
her Majesty's government Avould deem themselves authorized to advise 
the Queen to conclude a convention on this subject with the President 
of the LTnited States so soon as they shall have been informed that a 
similar convention has been agreed upon, and is ready for signature, 
between the President of the United States and the Emperor of the 
French, so that the two conventions might be signed simultaneously 
and on the same day. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your most 
obedient, humble servant, 

J. RUSSELL. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c. 



54 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

No. 42.] Department op State, 

Wasliimiton, Juhj 21, 1861. 

Sir: Your despatch of June 28 (No. 10) has been received. 

I have already, in a previous communication, informed you that 
this Government has not been disturbed hy the action of the Britisli 
authorities in sending three regiments into Canada, nor by the 
announceyient of tlie coming of British armed vessels into American 
waters. These movements are certainly not very formidable in their 
proportions, and we willing!}^ accept the explanation that they pro- 
ceed from merely prudential motives. 

Doubtless it had been better if the}^ had not been made. But what 
government can say that it never acts precipitatel.y, or even capri- 
ciously? On our part the possibility of foreign intervention, sooner or 
later, in this domestic disturbance is never absent from tlie thoughts 
of this government. AVe are therefore not likelj^ to exaggerate indi- 
cations of an emergency for which we hold ourselves bound to be in a 
measure always prepared. 

Another subject which, according to your report, was discussed in 
5'our late interview with Lord John Russell demands niore extended 
remarks. I refer to the portion of your despatch which is in these 
words: "His lordship then said something about difficulties in New 
Granada, and the intelligence that the insurgents there had passed a 
law to close their ports. J^ut the la^s' officers here told him that this 
could not be done as against foreign nations, except by the regular form 
of a blockade. He did not know what we thought about it, but he had 
observed that some such plan was said to be likely to be adopted at 
the coming meeting of Congress in regard to the ports of those whom 
we considered as insurgents." 

Much as I deprecate a reference in official communications of this 
kind to exj)lanations made by ministers in Parliament, not always fully 
or accui-ateh' reported, and alwaj^s liable to be j)erverted wlien applied 
to cases not considered when the explanations are given, I neverthe- 
less find it necessary, by way of elucidating the subject, to bring into 
this connexion the substance of a debate which is said to have taken 
place in the House of Commons on the 27th of June last, and which is 
as follows: 

Mr. H. Berkly asked the secretary of state for foreign affairs whether 
her Majesty's government recognized a notification given by Senor 
Martin, minister plenipotentiary to this court from the Granadian con- 
federation, better known as the Reiniblic of New Granada, which 
announces a blockade of the ports of Rio Ilacha, Santa Marta, Sa va- 
nilla, Carthagena, and Zaporte, and wliich government did her Majesty's 
government recognize in the so-called Granadian confederation. 

Lord John Russell said the question is one of considerable impor- 
tance. The government of New Granada has announced not a block- 
ade, but that certain ports of New Granada are to be closed. The 
opinion of hei- Majesty's government, after taking legal advice, is that 
it is perfectly competent for the government of a country in a state 
of tranquillity to say which ports shall be open to trade and which shall 
be closed, but in the event of insurrection or civil war in that country 
it is not competent for its govei'nment to close the ports that are de 
facto in the hands of the insurgents, as that would be an invasion of 
international law with regard to blockade. Admiral Milne, acting on 
instructions from her Majesty's government, has ordered the com- 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 55 

iiianders of her Majesty's ships not to recognize the closiug of their 
ports. 

Since yonr conversation with Lord John Russell, and also since the 
debate which I have extracted occurred, the C'ongi-ess of the United 
States has by law asserted the right of this government to close the 
poi'ts in this country which have been seized by tlte insurgents. 

I send you herewith a copy of the enactment. The connecting by 
Lord John Russell of that measure when it was in prosjiect with what 
had taken place in regard to a law of New Granada, gives to the 
remarks which he made to j^ou a significance that requires no especial 
illustration. If the government of the United States should close 
their insurrectionary ports under the ncAv statute, and Great Britain 
should, in pursuance of the intimation made, disregard the act,, no 
one can suppose for a moment that the I'nited States would acquiesce. 
When a conflict on such a question shall arrive between the United 
States and Great Jiritain it is not easily to be seen what maritime 
nation could keep aloof from it. It must be confessed, therefore, that 
a new incident has occurred increasing the danger that what has 
hitherto been, and, as we think, ought to be, a merely domestic con- 
trovei'sy of our own, may be enlarged into a genei-al war among the 
great maritime nations. Hence the necessity for endeavoring to bring 
about a more j^erfect understanding between the United States and 
Great liritain for the regulation of their mutual relations than has 
yet been attained. 

In attempting that important object I may be allowed to begin by 
affirming that the President deprecates, as much as any citizen of 
either country or any friend of humanity tliroughout the world can 
deprecate, the evil of foreign wars, to be superinduced, as he thinks 
unnecessarily, upon the painful civil conflict in which we are engaged 
for the purpose of defending and maintaining our national authority 
over our own disloyal citizens. 

I may add, also, for myself, that however otherwise I may at any time 
have been understood, it has been an earnest and profound solicitude 
to avert foreign war; that alone has prompted the emphatic and some- 
times, perhaps, imiDassioned remonstrances I have hitherto made 
against any form or measure of recognition of the insurgents by the 
government of Great Britain. I write in the same spirit now, and I 
invoke on the part of the British government, as I propose to exercise 
on my own, the calmness which all counsellors ought to practise in 
debates which involve the peace and happiness of mankind. 

The United States and Great Britain have assumed incompatible 
and thus far irreconcilable positions on the subject of the existing 
insurrection. 

The LTnited States claim and insist that the integrity of the republic 
is unbroken, and that their government is supreme so far as foreign 
nations are concerned, as well for war as for peace, over all the States, 
all sections, and all citizens, the loyal not more than the disloyal, the 
patriots and the insurgents alike. Consequently they insist that the 
British government shall in no wajMutervene in the insurrection, or 
hold commercial or other intercourse with the insurgents in deroga- 
tion of the federal authority. 

The British government, without having first deliberately heard 

the claims of the United States, announced through a proclamation 

of the Queen that it took notice of the insurrection as a civil war so 

'flagrant as to divide this country into two belligerent parties, of 

which the federal government constitutes one and the disloyal citizens 



56 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

the other; and consequently it inferred a riglit of Great Britain to 
stand in an attitude of neutrality between them. 

It is not my purpose at this time to vindicate the position of the 
United States, nor is it my purpose to attempt to show to the govern- 
ment of Great Britain that its position is indefensible. 

The question at issue concerns the United States primarily, and 
Great Britain only secondarily and incidentally. It is, as I have before 
said, a question of the integritj^, which is nothing less than the life, 
of the republic itself. 

The position which the government has taken has been dictated, 
therefore, bj^ the law of self-preservation. No nation animated bj^ 
loyal sentiments and inspired by a generous ambition can even suffer 
itself to debate with parties within or without a policj^ of self-pres- 
ervation. In assuming this position and the policy resulting from it, 
we have done, as I think, just what Great Britain herself niust, and 
therefore would, do if a domestic insurrection should attempt to detach 
Ireland or Scotland or England from the United Kingdom, while she 
would hear no argument nor enter into any debate upon the subject. 
Neither adverse opinions of theoretical writers nor precedents drawn 
from the practice of other nations or, even if they could be, from her 
owni would modify her course, which would be all the more vigoi'ously 
followed if internal resistance should fortify itself with alliances 
throughout the world. This is exactly the case now with the United 
States. 

So, for obvious reasons, I refrain from argument to prove to the 
government of Great Britain the assumed error of the position it has 
avowed. 

First. Argument from a party that maintains itself to be absolutely 
right, and resolved in no case to change its convictions, becomes 
merely controversial. Secondly. Such argument would be only an 
indirect way of defending our own position, which is unchangeable. 
Thirdly. The position of Great Britain has been taken upon the 
assumption of a certain degree of probability of success by the insur- 
gents in arms, and it must be sooner or later abandoned as that proba- 
bility shall diminish and ultimately cease, while in ariy case that cir- 
cumstance does not aifect our position or the policy which we have 
adopted. It must, therefore, be left to Great Britain to do what we 
have done, nameh% survey the entire field, with the consequences of 
her course, deemed by us to be erroneous, and determine as those con- 
sequences develop themselves how long that course shall be pursued. 

While, however, thus waiving controversy on the main point, I am 
tempted by a sincere conviction that Great Britain really must desire, 
as we do, that the peace of the world may not be unnecessarily broken, 
to consider the attitude of the two powers, with a view to mutual for- 
beaiance, until reconciliation of contlicting s}' stems .shall have become 
in every event impossible. 

The British government will, I think, admit that so soon as its unex- 
pected, and as we regard it, injurious position assumed in the Queen's 
proclamation became known to us, we took some pains to avert pre- 
mature or unnecessary collision, if it could be done without sacrificing 
any part of the sovereignty which we had determined in every event 
to defend. We promptly renewed the proposition which, fortunately 
for both parties, we had tendered before that proclamation was issued, 
to concede as one whole undivided sovereignty to Great Britain, as a 
friend, all the guarantees for her commerce that she might claim as a 
neutral from this government as one of her two imagined belligerents. 



NEUTKALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 57 

It seemed to us that these two great and kindred nations might decline 
to be dogmatic, and act practi(?ally with a view to immediate peace 
and ultimate good nndt^rstanding. 

So, on the other hand, it is niv duty to admit, as I most frankly do, 
that the directions given by the British government that our blockade 
shall be respected, and that favor or shelter shall be denied to iusur- 
gent privateers, together with the disallowance of the application of 
insurgent commissioners, have giv^en us good reason to expect that 
our comjjlete sovereignty, though theoretically questioned in the 
Queen's proclamation, would be practically respected. Lord Lyons, as 
you are aware, proposed to read to me a despatch which he had received 
from his government, affirming the position assumed in the Queen's 
proclamation, and deducing from that position claims as a neutral to 
guarantees of safety to British commerce less than those we had, as I 
have already stated, offered to her as a friend. I declined, as you 
have been advised, to hear the communication, but nevertheless 
renewed through you, as I consistently could, the offer of the greater 
guarantees before tendered. 

Tlie case then seemed to me to stand thus: The two nations had, 
indeed, failed to find a common ground or principle on whicli they 
<30uld stand together; but Xhey had succeeded in reaching a perfect 
understanding of the nature and extent of their disagreement, and in 
finding a line of mutual, practical forbearance. It was under this 
aspect of the positions of the two governments that the President 
thought himself authorized to inform Congress on its coming together 
on the 4th of July, instant, in extra session, that the sovereignt}' of the 
United States was practically respected by all nations. 

Nothing has occurred to change this condition of affairs, unless it 
be the attitude which Lord John Russell has indicated for the British 
government in regard to an apprehended closing of the insurrection- 
ary ports, an<l the passage of the law of Congress which autliorizes 
that measure in the discretion of the President. 

It is my purpose not to anticipate or even indicate the decision 
which will be made, but simply to suggest to you what you may prop- 
erly and advantageous!}^ say while the subject is under considei'ation. 
First. You will, of course, prevent misconception of the measure by 
stating that the law only authorizes the President to close the ports 
in his discretion, according as he shall regard exigencies now existing 
or hereafter to arise. 

Secondly. The passage of the law, taken in connexion with Attend- 
ant circumstances, does not necessarily indicate a legislative convic- 
tion that the ports ought to be closed, but only shows the purpose of 
Congress that the closing of the ports, if it is now or shall become 
necessary, shall not fail f<n' want of power explicitly conferred bylaw. 
AVhen, on tlie 13th of April last, disloyal citizens defiantly inaugurated 
an armed insurrection by the bombardment of Fort Sumter, the 
President's constitutional obligation to suj^i^ress the insurrection 
became imperative. 

But the case was new, and had not been adequately provided for 
by express law. The President called military and naval forces into 
activity, instituted a blockade, and incurred great expense, for all 
which no direct legal provisions existed. He convened Congress at 
the earliest possible da}^ to confirm these measures, if they should 
see fit. 

Congress, when it came together, confronted these facts. It lias 



58 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

employed itself less in directing how and in what way the Union 
shall be maintained than in confirming what the President had 
already done, and in putting into his hands more ample means and 
greater power than he has exercise<l or asked. 

The law in question was passed in this generous and patriotic 
spirit. Whether it shall be put into execution to-day or to-morrow, 
or at what time, will depend on the condition of things at home and 
abroad, and a careful weighing of the advantages of so stringent a 
measure against those which are derived from the existing blockade. 

Thirdly. You ma}' assure the British government that no change of 
policy now pursued, injuriously affecting foreign commerce, will be 
made from motives of aggression against nations which iJi'actically 
respect the sovereignty of the United States, or without due considera- 
tion of all the circumstances, foreign as well as domestic, bearing 
ui3on the question. The same spirit of forbearance towards foreign 
nations, arising from a desire to confine the calamities of the unhappy 
contest as much as possible, and to bring it to a close by the complete 
restoration of the authority of the government as speedily as possible, 
that have hitherto regulated the action of the government will con- 
tinue to control its counsels. 

On the other hand, you will not leave it at all doubtful that the 
President fully adheres to the position that this Government so early 
adopted, and which I have "so continually throughout this controversy 
maintained; consequently he fully agrees with Congress in the prin- 
ciple of the law which authorizes him to close the ports which have 
been seized by the insurgents, and he will put into execution and 
maintain it with all the means at his command, at the hazard of what- 
ever consequences, whenever it shall appear that the safety of the 
nation requires it. 

I cannot leave the subject without endeavoring once more, as I have 
so often done before, to induce the British Government to realize the 
conviction which I have more than once expressed in this correspond- 
ence, that the policj- of the Government is one that is based on inter- 
ests of the greatest importance and sentiments of the highest virtue, 
and therefor is in no case likel}' to be changed, whatever may be the 
varying fortunes of the war at home or the action of foreign nations 
on this subject, while the policy of foreign States rests on ep»hemeral 
interests of commerce or of ambition merely. The policy" of these 
United States is not a creature of the Government but an inspiration 
of the people, while the policies of foreign States are at the choice 
mainly of the governments presiding over them. If, through error, 
on whatever side this civil contention shall transcend the national 
bonds and in volve foreign States, the energies of all commercial nations, 
including our own, will necessarily be turned to war, and a general 
carnival of the adventurous and the reckless of all countries, at the 
cost of the existing commerce of the world, must ensue. Beyond that 
painful scene upon the seas there lie, but dimly concealed from our 
vision, scenes of devastation and desolation which will leave no roots 
remaining out of which trade between the United States and Great 
Britain, as it has hitherto flourished, can ever again spring up 
I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 



NEUTEALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 5 9 

Jlr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 

[Extracts.] 

[No. 20.] Legation of the United States, 

London, July 26, 1861. 

Sir: At the close of my despatch, No. 17, on the subject of ray last 
conference with Lord John Russell, I mentioned my intention to write 
to Mr. Da^'ton at Paris to know whether he felt authorized to proceed 
in a simultaneous negotiation on the subject of the declaration of the 
congress at Paris. I have now to report that I executed my purpose 
on the 19th instant. 

On the evening of the 24th I received a note from Mr. Daj'ton 
announcing his arrival in town and his wish to confer with me upon 
this matter. 

Yesterday morning I had the pleasure of a full and free conversa- 
tion with him, in the course of which we carefully compared our 
respective instructions and the action taken under them. 

1 am very glad he has taken the trouble to come over to see me, for 
I confess that I was a little embarrassed by not knowing the precise 
nature of his proposal to the French government at the time when I 
heard of it from Lord John Russell. Had I been informed of it I 
should perhaps have shaped my course a little different! j^ So I doubt 
not that he would have been pleased to know more exactly my own pro- 
ceedings as well as the more specific character of my instructions. 
An hour's interview has had the effect to correct our impressions better 
than could have been accomplished by an elaborate correspondence. 

I can now perfectly understand as well as enter into the reasons 
which promj)ted his proposal of the declaration of Paris, connected 
as it was with the modification first suggested by Mr. Marcy. There 
can be no doubt that the attempt to secure such an extension of the 
application of the princii:)le contained in the first point of that decla- 
ration was worth making, on the part of the new administration, par- 
ticularly at a place where there was no reason to presume any disin- 
clination to adopt it. Neither did the replj^ of Mr. Thouvenel entirely 
preclude the ho]3e of ultimate success, so far as the disposition of 
France may be presumed. 

The obstacles, if any there are, must be inferred to have been 
thought to exist elsewhere. And an advance could be expected only 
when the efforts to remove them had been applied with effect in the 
proper quarter. It was, therefore, both natural and proper for Mr. 
Daj^ton, after having made his offer and received such an answer, to 
wait patiently until it should become apparent that such efforts had 
been made, and made without success. 

There can be no doubt that the opposition to this modification cen- 
tres here. Independently of the foi'mal announcement of Lord John 
Russell to me that the proposition was declined, I have, from other 
sources of information, some reason to believe that it springs from 
the tenacity of a class of influential persons, by their age and general 
affinities, averse to all sudden variations from established ideas. 
Such people are not to be carried away b}^ novel reasoning, however 
forcible. We have cause to feel the presence of a similar power at 
home, though in a vasth' reduced degree. 

All modifications of the public law, however beneficent, naturally 
meet with honest resistance in these quarters for a time. It is to be 
feared that this may have the effect of defeating, at this moment, the 



60 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

application of the noble doctrines of the declaration of Paris, in the full 
expansion of which they are susceptible. But to my mind the fail- 
ure to reach that extreme point will not justify the United States in 
declining to accept the good which is actually within their grasp. 
The declaration of the leading powers of civilized Europe, made at 
Paris in 1S5'3, engrafted upon the law of nations for the first time 
great principles for which the government of the United States had 
always contended against some of those powers, and down to that 
time had contended in vain. 

That great act was the virtual triumph of their polic}^ all over the 
globe. It was the sacrifice, on the part of Great Britain, of notions 
she had ever before held to with the most unrelenting rigidity. It 
would therefore seem as if any reluctance to acknowledge this prac- 
tical amount of benefit, obtained on the mere ground that something 
remained to require, was calculated only to wither the laurels gained 
by our victory. 

It would almost seem like a retrogade tendencj^ to the barbarism of 
former ages. Surely it is not in the spirit of the reformed government 
in America to give countenance to any such impression. Whatever 
may have been the character of the policy in later years, the advent 
of another and a better power should be marked by a recurrence to 
tlie best doctrines ever proclaimed in the national history. And if it 
so happen that thej^ are not now adopted by others to the exact extent 
that we would prefer, the obvious course of wisdom would seem to be 
to accept the good which can be obtained, and patiently to await 
another opportunity when a continuance of exertions in the same 
direction may enable us to secure everything that is left to be desired. 

I think that Mr. Dayton has waited only to be convinced that his 
proposed modification cannot be secured before he acts ujjon the 
authority given him to accede to the declaration of Paris, i)ure and 
simple. 

On my part, I have aj)prised him of the answer made to me by Lord 
John Russell at our last conference. But he wishes some evidence 
upon which he can rely a little more securely than a report of conver- 
sation. And considering the remarkable discrepancy in the recollec- 
tion of the conferences with his lordship, which has thus far taken 
place, I am not surprised. In order to meet this difficulty he has 
addressed to me a letter of inquiry, which I propose to answer. At 
the same time I design to address a letter to his lordship recapitulating 
the portion of his conversation that is in question, and informing him 
that, on the assuiii2:>fion that I understood Mm rigid, Mr. Dayton con- 
sents to proceed. This will, of course, render it necessary for him to 
to explain himself, if the fact should be otherwise. 

Mr. Dayton will, of course, communicate directly with the depart- 
ment as to the later measures which he may think proper to take. 

You will have been already informed by the newspapers of the 
changes which the ministry has undergone in consequence of the 
necessity imposed uj^on Lord Herbert by his failing health to retire 
from his post. As a consequence. Lord John Russell has been called 
to the House of Lords, though retaining his official station, and some 
shifting of other places has occurred. The onlv new appointment is 
that of Sir Robert Peel. * * * - * * * 

*H« * * ****** 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 61 

But I have not time at the close of this communication to enter into 
any speculations so intimately connected with a general view of the 
state of affairs in the other countries of Europe as well as in the 
United States. I shall therefore reserve what views I may have to 
submit on this subject to a future opportunity. 
I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, lVashi)i<jton, D. C. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

[Confidential.] 

No. 46.] Department of State, 

Wasliington, July 26, 1861. 

Sir: My despatch, No. 42, dated July 21, was delaj^ed beyond the 
proper mail day by circumstances entirely bej^ond mj^ control. I trust, 
however, that it will still be in time. 

Our army of the Potomac on Sunday last met a reverse equally 
severe and unexpected. For a day or two the panic which had pro- 
duced the result was followed by a panic that seemed to threaten to 
demoralize the country. But that evil has ceased already. The 
result is already seen in a vigorous reconstruction upon a scale of 
greater magnitude and increased enthusiasm. 

It is not likely that anything will now be done here, hastily or 
inconsiderately, affecting our foreign relations. 

I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H.. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c. 



Mr. Se'iL'ard to Mr. Adams. 

[Confidential.] 

No. 49.] Department of State, 

Washington, Juty 29, 1861. 

Sir: Your despatch of July 12, 1801, No. 14, has been received. 

Your proposition of making a distinct appeal to the British govern- 
ment on the subject of the issue between it and this government, upon 
the question so long discussed, is approved. We shall look with much 
interest for the answer of that government. 

You will hear of a reverse of our arms in Virginia. The exaggera- 
tions of the result have been as great as the public impatience, per- 
haps, which brought it about. But the affair will not produce anj' 
serious injury. The strength of the insurrection is not broken, but it 
is not formidable. The vigor of the government Avill be increased,- 
and the ultimate result will be a triumph of the Constitution. Do not 
be misled by panic reports of danger apprehended for the capital. 

Some important points in your despatch will be treated of in another- 
paper. 

I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c. 



62 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

Jfr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 

No 22.] Legation of the United States, 

London, August 2, 1861. 
Sir: I have the honor to transmit the copy of a note addressed by 
me on the 29th of Jnly last to Lord John Russell, and likewise a copy 
of his lordship's repl}' . I must frankly admit that I do not understand 
the meaning of the last paragraph. 

I have transmitted a copy of his lordship's note to Mr. Dayton. I 
doubt not that it will be deemed by him so far satisfactory as to induce 
him to take the necc^ssary measures for a simidtaneous negotiation as 
soon as the eustomarj^ arrangements with the French government can 
be made. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. Wm. H. Seward, 

fiecretary of State, Wasliington, D. C. 



Legation of the United States, 

London, Jidij 29, 1861. 

My Lord: I have the honor now to inform your lordship that, in 
consonance with the intention expressed in my note of the 19th instant, 
I have written to Mr. Dayton, at Paris, touching the extent of his 
powers to negotiate ui)on the same basis proposed by me to you with 
the government of France, to which he is accredited. I have also to 
say that since the date of my writing I have had the pleasure to con- 
verse personally with him as well as to receive a letter from him in 
answer to my inquiry. 

Mr. Dayton informs me that, some time since, he made a proposal to 
the French government to adopt the declaration of the congress of 
Paris in 1850, with an addition to tlie first clause, in substance the 
same with that heretofore proposed by his predecessor, Mr. Mason, 
under instructions given bj^ Mr. Marcy, then the Secretary of State of 
the United States. To that projjosal he received an answer from the 
Fi-euch minister of foreign affairs, declining to consider the proposi- 
tion, not for any objection entertained against it, but because it was 
a variation from the terms of the original agreement requiring a prior 
reference of it to th-e other parties to that convention. This answer 
does not, in his opinion, make the ultimate acceptance of his addition 
impossible, and he does not feel as if he ought to abandon the support 
of what he considers as so beneflcient an amendment to the original 
plan until he has reason to despair of success. He has therefore 
requested to know of me whether I have reason to believe i^ersever- 
ance in this direction to be fruitless. 

For my part I entirely concur in the view entertained by Mr. Day- 
ton of the value of this amendment. I also know so well the interest 
that my government takes in its adoption as to be sure tliat it would 
refuse to justify a further jjrocedure on our part which was not based 
upon a reasonable certainty that success is not attainable, at least at 
the present moment. I have therefore ventured to state to Mr. Day- 
ton my belief that I have that certainty. I have therefore mentioned 
to him, what I have likewise communicated to the projier department 
of the government of the United States, the fact that in the last con- 
ference I had the honor to hold with your lordship, allusion having 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 63 

been made to the ameiidinent of Mr. Dayton, I said that that amend- 
ment was nndoubtedly the first wish of my government, and that I 
had instrnctions to press it if there was the smallest probability of 
success, but that I snj)posed this matter to have been already defini- 
tively acted upon. To which I understood your lordshij) to signifj^ 
your assent, and to add that I might consider the proposition as inad- 
missible. If I have made no mistake in reporting the substance of 
what pas.sed between us, Mr. Dayton tells me he is satisfied and 
expresses his readiness to proceed on the basis j)roposed by me to 
your lordship with the French government. But in order to remove 
all probability of misconception between him and mj^self, I have taken 
the liberty' of recalling yonr lordship's attention to the matter before 
it may be too late. Should there have been any essential error of fact 
on the main point, I trust your lordship will do me the favor to set me 
right. 

Shoald it happen, on the contrary, that I am correct, I believe it 
will not be necessarj' to interpose any delay in the negotiations for 
further reference to the government of the United States. Mr. Day- 
ton will take the necessary- steps to apprise the government of the 
Emperor of the French of his intention to accede to the declaration of 
Paris, pure and simple, and the negotiations maj^ be carried on simul- 
taneously in both countries as soon as the necessary arrangements can 
be perfected on the resi^ective sides. 

However my government may regret that it has not been able to 
expand the application of the princii^les of the declaration of Paris to 
the extent wdiich it deems desirable, it is too well convinced of the 
great value of the recognition actually given to those principles b}^ 
the great powers of Europe in that act longer to hesitate in giving in 
its cordial adhesion. But it ardently cherishes the hope that time 
and the favoring progress of correct opinion may before long bring 
about opportunities for additional developments of the system they 
initiate, through the cooperation of all maritime nations of the earth, 
and most especiall}^ of one so enlightened and philanthropic as Great 
Britain. 

Renewing the assurances of my highest consideration, I have the 
honor to be your lordship's most obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

The Right Hon. Lord John Russell, &c., &c., &c. 



Foreign Office, July 31, 1861. 
Sir: I have had the honor to receive your letter of the SOth instant, in 
which you inform me that Mr. Dayton some time since made a proposal 
to the French government to adopt the declaration of the congress of 
Paris in 1856, with an addition to the first clause, in substance the same 
with that heretofore pi'oposed by his predecessor, Mr. Mason, under 
instructions given by Mr. Marcy, then the Secretary of State of the 
United States. After giving an account of the reception given to that 
proposition hw the French government and the value attached to it hj 
Mr. Dayton and yourself, you proceed to state that in a conversation 
with me you told me that the addition proposed was the first wish of 
your government, and that you had instructions to press it if there was 
the smallest probabilit}^ of success, but that you supposed this matter 
to have been already deflnitelj^ acted upon. You represent me as 



64 NEUTEALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

signifying my assent, and adding that I considered the proposition as 
inadmissible. 

So far as I am concerned, tliis statement is perfectly correct. 

You go on to inform me that in the case of your statement being- 
correct, Mr. Dayton will take the necessary steps to apprise the French 
government of his intention to accede Co the declaration of Paris, 
"pure and simple, and that the negotiations may be carried on simul- 
taneously in both countries as soon as the necessary arrangements 
can be jjerfected on the respective sides." 

You will doubtless recollect that in my letter of the 18th instant I 
stated that "her Majesty's government are of opinion that they should 
be assured that the United States are ready to enter into a similar 
engagement with France and with the other maritime powers who are 
parties to the declaration of Paris, and do not propose to make simply 
and separately a convention with Great Britain only." 

But as I agreed in the same letter to waive this assurance, and as I 
conclude, in point of fact, the United States are willing to sign similar 
conventions with all the states parties to the declaration of Paris, I 
shall be ready to carry on the negotiations as soon as the necessary 
arrangements can be perfected in London and Paris, so that the con- 
ventions may be signed simuiltaneoiisly at those two capitals. 

I need scarcely add that on the part of Great Britain the engage- 
ment will be prospective and will not invalidate anything already 
done. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your 
most obedient, humble servant. 



J. RUSSELL. 



Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

No. 55.] . Department of State, 

Wasliington, Augusts, 1861. 

Sir: Your despatch (No. 17) of the date of July 19th has been 
received. 

I entirely approve of the letter which you addressed to Lord .John 
Russell of the 11th, a copy of which accompanied that despatch, and 
I wait now with impatience, yet not without some solicitude, for the 
action of the British government upon our propositions which we so 
early sent forward in good faitli, and which by such strange accidents 
have been so long in reaching the cabinet of Great Britain. 

I need hardly tell you that the same mail which conveyed our propo- 
sitions concerning maritime rights for the consideration of the British 
government carried also propositions literally tlie same for the con- 
sideration of the French government and that of every other maritime 
power in Europe. 

All those powers are understood to be awaiting the action of the 
government of Great Britain. 

I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c. 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 65 

Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

No. 58.] Department of State, 

Washingt())i, August 12, 1861. 

Sir: Yonr despatch of July 24th (No. 20) has been received. I am 
glad that you have had a full and satisfactoiy conversation with Mr. 
Dayton. It seems probable that we shall now be able to arrive at an 
understanding with the governments of Great 13ritain and France on 
the subject of international law relating to maritime war. 

The shock produced by the reverse of our arms at Bull Run has 
passed away. The army is reorganized; the elections show that reac- 
tion against disunion has begun in the revolutionar}^ States, and we 
may confidently look for a restoration of the national authority 
throughout the Union. 

If our foreign relations were once promptly re-established on their 
former basis, the disunion sentiment would languish and perish within 
a 3^ear. 

I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Setvard. 

[Extract.] 

No. 2!).] Legation of the United States, 

London, August 16, 1861. 

Sir: I have read with great attention the contents of yonr despatch 
(No. 42) dated the 21st July, and shall avail myself of the argument 
upon the next occasion of an interview with Lord Russell. But I 
have not thought it necessary to solicit one, for the reason that the 
government here does not appear to contemplate any change of position 
so long as the blockade shall be kept up. 

In the last conference which I had with his lordship I took occasion 
towards the close of it to intimate to him that he must not infer, from 
my not having entered into discussion of the merits of the question, 
that I gave any assent to the position taken by him about the right of 
a government to close its own i3orts when held by forcible possession 
of persons resisting its authority. On the contrary, I desired to reserve 
for my government the treatment of it as an open question whenever 
it should take any practical shape. 

In the meantime I had every reason to believe that it was the design 
of the President to j)ersevere in the blockade, and to that end that the 
necessarj^ forces were in constant process of accumulation. This 
course being understood to be one against which his loi'dship had sig- 
nified an intention not to raise any objection, I did not think it worth 
while now to go further. At the time of this interview no mention 
had been made of the precise form of the legislation contemplated by 
Congress. We received more precise intelligence on this side of the 
water a few days before the prorogation of Parliament. On the very 
last day for transacting business the subject was brought up in the 
House of Commons on a question addressed to Lord Palmerston by 

S. Doc. 18 



66 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

Mr. Wyld. His lordship's answer has doubtless attracted your atten- 
tion long ere this. He considered the law as merelj^ giving a discre- 
tionary power, but if carried into practice he construed it as putting 
an end to the blockade. So that, whether under blockade or under a 
levy of duties, foreign nations would have a rule to go by. His reply 
was, however, rather specious than solid, for it did not touch the diffi- 
culty X)resented b}" the fourth section nor that involved in a possible 
levy of a double set of duties, one by the government on shipboard 
and another by the insurgents on land. I am inclined to believe that 
serious objection would be made here in either of these contingencies. 
For this reason I do not deem it expedient to stir the matter until the 
necessity for it shall become positive. Believing the government to 
be on the whole favorably disposed towards us, and also that it is of 
great imi3ortance to avoid all complications of the present struggle 
which would practically benefit the insurgents, T shall delay to open 
any sources of controversy^ which I think n\a,y be avoided until espe- 
cially instructed to do otherwise. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Wasliington, D. C. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

No. 61.] Department of State, 

Washington, August 17, 1801. 

Sir: Your despatch of August 2 (No. 22) has been received. It is 
accompanied by a correspondence which has just taken place between 
yourself and Lord John Russell, with a view, on your part, to remove 
possible obstructions against the entrance upon negotiations, with 
which 3^ou have so long been charged, for an accession on our part to 
the declaration of the congress of Paris on the subject of the rights 
of neutrals in maritime war. It was also understood by you that a 
further result of the correspondence would be to facilitate, indirectl^^ 
the opening of similar negotiations for a like object, by Mr. Daj'ton, 
with the government of France. 

Your letter to Lord John Russell is judicious, and is approved. 
Lord John Russell's answer is satisfactory with the exception of a 
single passage, upon which it is my duty to instruct j^oti to ask the 
British secretary for foreign affairs for an explanation. 

That passage is as follows: 

"I need scarcely add that on the part of Great Britain the engage- 
ment will be prospective, and will not invalidate anything alreadj' 
done." 

A brief statement of the objects of the proposed negotiation will 
bring the necessit.y for an explanation of this passage into a strong 
light. We have heretofore proposed to other maritime states certain 
meliorations of the laws of maritime war affecting the rights of 
neutrals. These meliorations are: 1st. That the neutral flag shall 
protect enemy's goods not contraband of war. 2d. That the goods 
of neutrals, not contraband, though found under an enem3"'s flag, 



NEUTEALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 67 

shall not be confiscated. 3d. That blockades, to be respected, must 
be effective. 

The congress at Paris adopted these three principles, adding a fourth, 
namely, that privateering shall be abolished. Tlie powers which con- 
stituted that congress invited the adhesion of the United States to that 
declaration. The United States answered that they would accede on 
condition that the other powers would accept a fifth proposition, 
namely, that the goods of priv^ate persons, non-combatants, should be 
exempt from confiscation in nmritinie wai". 

When this answer was given by the United States, the British gov- 
ernment declined to accept the proposed amendment, or fifth i)ropo- 
sition, thus offered b}^ the United States, and the negotiation was 
then suspended. We have now proposed to resume the negotiation, 
offering our adhesion to the declaration of Paris, as before, with the 
amendment which would exempt private property from confiscation in 
maritime war, 

The British government now, as before, declares this amendment 
or fifth proposition inadmissible. It results that, if the United States 
can at all l)ecome a party to the declaration of the congress of Paris 
bj" the necessary consent of the parties already committed to it, this 
can be done only bj^ their accepting that declaration without any 
amendment whatever; in other words, "pure and simple." Under 
these circumstances you have proposed in your letter to Lord John 
Russell to negotiate our adhesion to the declaration in that form. It 
is at this stage of the affair that Lord John Russell interposes, b}^ way 
of caution, the remark, that "on the part of Great Britain the engage- 
ment will be prospective, and M'ill not invalidate anything already 
done." 

I need dwell on this remark only one momentto show that, although 
expressed in a very simple form and in a quite casual manner, it con- 
tains what amounts to a preUminary condition, which must be con- 
ceded b}" the United States to Great Britain, and either be inserted in 
the convention, and so modifyour adhesion to the declaratiou of Paris, 
or else must be in some confidential manner implied and reserved, 
with the same effect. 

Upon principle this government could not consent to enter into 
formal negotiations, the result of which, as expressed in a convention 
should be modified or restricted by a tacit or implied reservation. 
Even if such a proceeding was compatible with our convictions of pro- 
priety or of expediency, there could yet remain an insuperable obstacle 
in the way of such a measure. 

The President can only initiate a treat^y. The treat}^ negotiated can 
come into life only through an express and deliberate act of ratifica- 
tion by the Senate of the United States, which ratification sanctions, 
in any case, only what is set down in the treaty itself. I am not by 
any means to be understood in these remarks as implj'ing a belief that 
Lord John Russell desires, expects, or contemplates the practice of 
any reservation on the part of the United States or of Great Britain. 
The fact of his having given jou the caution upon which I am remark- 
ing would be sufficient, if evidence were necessary, to exclude any 
apprehension of that sort. It results from these remarks that the 
convention into which we are to enter must contain a provision to the 
effect that " the engagements" to be made therein are "on the part 
of Great Britain prospective, and will not invalidate anything already 
done." 



68 NEUTEALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

I must, therefore, now discuss the propriety of inserting snch a 
stipulation in the convention which you have been authorized to con- 
summate. The proposed stipulation is divisible into two parts, namely : 
First. That the engagements of Great Britain are "prospective" 
[only.] 

I do not see any great objection to such an amendment. But why 
should it be important^ A contract is always prospective, and pros- 
pective only, if it contains no express stipulation that it shall be 
retrospective in its operation. So much, therefore, of the stipulation 
asked is unnecessary, while if conceded it might possibly give occa- 
sion to misapprehension as to its effect. You will, therefore, decline 
to make such a condition without first receiving a satisfactory explana- 
tion of its meaning and its importance. 

The second part of the proposed condition is, that the "engagement 
will not invalidate anything already done." I am not sure that I 
should think this proposed condition excei)tionable, if its effect were 
clearly understood. It is necessai-y, however, to go outside of his 
lordship's letter to find out what is meant by the words "anything 
already done." If "anything" pertinent to the subject "has been 
already done" which ought not to be invalidated, it is clear that it 
must have been done either by the joint action of the United States 
and Great Britain, or by the United States only, or by Great Britain 
acting alone. There has been no joint action of the United States and 
Great Britain upon the subject. The United States have done nothing 
affecting it; certainly nothing which they apprehend would be invali- 
dated by the simple form of convention which they propose. I am left 
to conclude, therefore, that the "thing" which "has been done 
already," and which Great Britain desires shall not be invalidated by 
the convention, must be something which she herself has done. At 
the same time we are left to conjecture what that thing is which is 
thus to be carefully saved. It would be hazardous on our part to 
assume to know^, while I have no doubt that the British government, 
with its accustomed frankness, and in view of the desirableness of a 
perfect understanding of the matter, will at once specify what the 
thing which has been done by her, and which is' not to be invalidated, 
really is. You will, therefore, respectfully ask the right honorable 
secretarj^ for foreign affairs for an exj)lanation of the part of his letter 
which I have thus drawn under review, as a preliminarj' to any further 
I3roceedings in the proposed negotiation. 

You will perform this in such a manner as to show that the explana- 
tion is asked in no querulous or hypercritical spirit. Secondly, you 
will perform it with reaso'^able promptness, so that the attainment of 
the important object of the negotiation may not be unnecessarily 
delayed; and, thirdly, you Avill assure the Biitish government that 
while the United States at present see no reason to think that the 
stipulation proposed is necessaiy or expedient, yet, in view of the 
great interests of commerce and of civilization which are involved, 
they will refuse nothing which shall be really just or even nonessen- 
tial and not injurious to themselves, while of course I suppose thej^ 
are liot expected in any way to compromise their own national integ- 
rity, safety, or honor. 

I am, sir, respectfulh% your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c. 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 69 

Mr. Senuird to Mr. Adcon.s. 

No. 03.] Department of State, 

Washingto)i, August 17, 1861. 

SiR: Alexander II. Schiiltz, a special inesseni>er, will deliver to you 
tliis despatch, together with a bag containing papers addressed to 
Lord John Russell. 

On the 5th instant I was advised by a telegram from Cincinnati that 
Robert Mure, of Charleston, was on his waj^ to New York to embark 
at that port for England, and that he was a bearer of despatches from 
the usurping insurrectionary authorities of Richmond to Earl Russell. 
Other information bore that he was a bearer of despatches from the 
same authorities to their agents in London. Information from vari- 
ous sources agreed in the fact that he was travelli7ig under a passport 
from the l^ritish consul at C'harleston. 

Upon this information I directed the i^olice at New York to detain 
Mr. Mure and any papers which might be found in his possession 
until I should give further directions. lie was so detained, and he is 
now in custody at Fort Lafayette awaiting full disclosures. In his 
j)ossession were found seventy letters, four of which were unsealed 
and sixty-six sealed. There was also found in his possession a sealed 
bag marked "Foreign Office, 3," with two labels, as follows: "On 
Her Brit. Maj. service. The Riglit Honorable the Lord John Rus- 
sell, M. P., &c., tfec, c%c. Despatches in charge of Robert Mure, Esq," 
signed Robert Bunch. "On Her Brit. Maj. service. The Right Hon- 
orable the Lord John Russell, M. P., II. B. M.'s Principal Secretary 
of State for Foreign Affairs, Foreign Office, London, R. Bunch." 
The bag bears two impressions of the seal of office of the British con- 
sul at Charleston, and seems to contain voluminous papers. 

There were also found upon Mr. Mure's person, in an open envelope, 
what pretends to be a passport in the following words. — (See Annex A.) 

Also a letter of introduction, which is as follows. — (See Annex B.) 

There were also found several unsealed copies of a printed pamphlet 
entitled "A narrative of the Battles of Bull Run and Manassas Junc- 
tion, July 18th and 2ist. Accounts of the advance of both armies, 
the battles and rout of the enemy, compiled chiefly from the detailed 
reports of the Virginia and South Carolina press; Charleston, Steam 
Power Presses of Evans & Coggswell, No. 3 Broad, and 103 East Bay 
streets, 1801." 

This pamphlet is manifestl}^ an argument for the disunion of the 
United States. Several copies of it were found addressed to persons 
in England. 

The mai'ks and outward appearance of the bag indicate that its 
contents are exclusively legitimate communications from the liritish 
consul at Charleston to H. B. M.'s government. Nevertheless, I have 
what seem to be good reasons for supposing that they nmy be treason- 
able papers, designed and gotten up to aid j)arties engaged in arms 
for the overthrow of tliis government and the dissolution of the LTnion. 
These reasons are: 1st. That I can hardl}^ conceive that there can be 
any occasion for such very voluminous communications of a legiti- 
mate nature being made by the consul at Charleston to his govern- 
ment at the present time. 2d. Consuls have no authority to issue 
passports, the granting of them being, as I understand, not a consular 
but a diplomatic function. Passports, however, have in other times 
been habitually granted b}" foreign consuls residing in the United 
States. But soon after the insurrection broke out in the Southern 



70 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

States a regulation was made bj^ this department, which I have excel- 
lent means of knowing' was comninnieated to the British consul at 
Charleston, to the effect that until further orders, no diplomatic or 
consular ijassxjorts would be recognized by this government, so far as 
to permit the bearer to pass through the lines of the national forces 
or out of the country, unless it should be countersigned by the Secre- 
taiy of State and the commanding general of the army of the United 
States. Mr. Mure had passed the lines of the army, and was in the act 
of leaving the United States in open violation of this regulation. More- 
over, the bearer of the papers, Robert Mure, is a naturalized citizen of 
the United States, has resided here thirty years, and is a colonel in the 
insurgent military forces of South Carolina. 3d. If the papers con- 
tained in the bag are not illegal in their nature or purpose, it is not seen 
why their safe transmission was not secured, as it might have been by 
exposing them in some way to Lord Lyons, British minister residing at 
this capital, whose voucher for their propi-iety, as Mr. Bunch must well 
know, would exempt them from all scrutiny or suspicion. 4th. The con- 
sul's letter to the bearer of dispatches attaches an unusual importance 
to the papers in question, while it expresses great impatience for their 
immediate conversance to their destination and an undue anxiety lest 
they might, by some accident, come under the notice of this govern- 
ment. 5th. The bearer is proved to be disloyal to the LTnited States 
bj' the pamphlet and the letters found in his possession. 

I have examined many of the papers found upon the person of Mr. 
Mure, and I find them full of treasonable information, and clearly 
written for treasonable purposes. These, I think, will be deemed 
sufficient grounds for desiring the scrutiny of the. papers and surveil- 
lance of the bearer on my j)art. 

Comity towards the British government, together with a perfect con- 
fidence in its justice and honor, as well as its friendship towards the 
United States, to say nothing of a sense of propriety, which I could not 
dismiss, have prevented me from entertaining, for a moment, the idea 
of breaking the seals which I have so much reason to believe were put 
upon the consular bag to save it from my inspection, while the bearer 
himself might remove them on his arrival in London, after which he 
might convey the papers, if treasonable, to the agents of the insur- 
gents, now understood to be residing in several of the capitals in 
Europe. 

I will not say that I have established the fact that the papers in 
question are treasonable in their nature, and are made with purposes 
hostile and dangerous to this countr3\ But I confess I. fear they are 
so, and I apprehend either that they are guilty desipatches to the 
agents of disunion, or else that, if they are really addressed to the 
British government, they are papers prepared by traitors in the insur- 
rectionarjs States, with a view to apply to the British government for 
some advantage and assistance or countenance from that government 
injurious to the United States and subversive of their sovereignty. 
Of course, I need hardly say that I disclaim any thought that Earl 
Russell has any knowledge of the papers or of their being sent, or that 
I have any belief or fear that the British government would, in any 
way, receive the papers if they are illegal in their character, or dan- 
gerous or injurious to the Laiited States. It is important, however, 
to this government that whatever mischief, if any, may be lurking in 
the transaction, be counteracted and prevented. 

I have, therefore, uj)on due consideration of the case, concluded to 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 71 

send the hivj; by a special messenger, who will deliver it into your 
care, and to instruct you to see that it is deliv^ered accordingly to its 
address in exactly tlie condition in which you receive it. 

You will also make known to the Earl Russell the causes and the 
circumstances of the arrest and detention of Mr. Mure and his papers, 
adding the assurance that this government deeply regrets that it has 
become necessary, and that it will be very desirous to excuse the brief 
interruption of tlie correspondence of the British consul, if it is indeed 
innocent, and will endeavor in that ease to render any further satis- 
faction which may be justlj^ required. On the other hand, you will, in 
such terms as you shall find most suitable and proper, intimate that 
if the papers in question shall prove to be treasonable against the 
United States, I expect that they will be delivered up to you for the 
use of this government, and that her British Majesty's consul at 
Charleston will, in that case, be promptly made to feel the severe dis- 
pleasure of the government which employs him, since there can be no 
greater crime against society than a perversion by the agent of one 
government of the hospitality afforded to him by another, to designs 
against its safety, dignit}^ and honor. 

I think it proper to say that I have apprised Lord Lyons of this 
transaction and of the general character of this letter, while he is not 
in any way compi'omised bj^ aiiy assent given to m}^ i)roceedings, or 
by any opinion expressed by him or asked from him. 
I am, sir, vour obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles F, Adams, Esq., &c., dx:, d-c. 



Mr. Seivard to Mr. Adams. 

No. 04.] Department of State, 

JVa.sliiugton, August 17, 1861. 

Sir: Among the letters found on the person of Robert Mure, men- 
tioned in my despatch No. 03, of this date, there are many which more 
or less directly implicate Mr. Robert Bunch, the British consul at 
Charleston, as a conspirator against the government of the L'nited 
States. The following is an extract from one of them : 

"Mr. B., on oath of secrecy, communicated to me also that the ^rs^ 
step to recognition was taken, lie and Mr. Belligny together sent 
Mr. Trescott to Richmond yesterday to ask Jeff. Davis, president, to 

the treaty of to the neutral flag covering neutral 

goods to be respected. This is the first step of direct treating with 
our government, so prepare for active business by January 1." 

You will submit this information to the British government and 
request that Mr. Bunch may be removed from his office, saying that 
this government will grant an exequatur to any person who may be 
appointed to fill it who will not pervert his functions to hostilities 
against the LTnited States. 

I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles F. Adams, Esq., dc, d-c, dc. 



72 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

2Ir. Adams to Mr. Seward. 

No. o2.] Legation of the United States, 

London, August 23, 1861. 

Sir: I have the honor to transmit a cop}" of a note addressed to me 
hy Lord Russell, transmitting to me a copy of a declaration which he 
proposes to make upon signing the conv^ention, embodying the arti- 
cles of the declaration of Paris, in conjunction with myself. 

I have waited to communicate with Mr. Dayton until I now learn 
from him that Mr. Tliouvenel iDroposes to him a similar movement on 
the part of France. 

This proceeding is of so grave and novel a character as, in my opin- 
ion, to render further action unadvisable until I obtain further instruc- 
tions, and I find Mr. Dayton is of the same opinion on his side. I 
propose to address a letter to his lordship stating my reasons for 
declining to proceed, as soon as possil)le, but I fear I shall not have 
time to get it ready and a copy made in season for the present mail. 
I shall therefore postpone any further elucidation of ni}' views until 
the next opportunity. I do so the more readily that I am iuformed 
by Mr. Daj^ ton that you have ceased to consider the matter as one of 
any urgent importance. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington. 



Foreign Office, August 19, 1801. 

Sir: I have the honor to enclose a copy of a declaration which I 
propose to make upon signing the convention of which you gave me 
a draft embodying the articles of the declaration of Paris. 

I propose to make the declaration in question in a written form, 
and to furnish j'ou wih a copy of it. 

You will observe that it is intended to prevent any misconception 
as to the nature of the engagement to be taken by her Majesty. 

If you have no objection to name a day in the course of this week 
for the signature of the convention, ]Mr. Dayton can, on that day and 
at the same time, sign with M. Thouvenel a convention identical with 
that which you propose to s'gu with me. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your 
most obedient, humble servant, 

RUSSELL. 

C. F. Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c. 



Draft of Declaration. 

In affixing his signature to the convention of this day between her 
Majesty the Queen of Great Briiain and Ireland and the United States 
of America, the Earl Russell declares, l>y order of her Majesty, that 
her Majesty does not intend thereby to undertake any engagement 
which shall have any bearing, direct or indirect, on the internal dif- 
ferences now prevailing in the United States. 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 73 

Mr. F. W. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

No. 74.] Department of State, 

WasJiiiujfon, August 27, 1861. 

Sir: Your despatch of August 8, No. 2t, has been received. 

The account you have given us of the impi-ession made by tlie 
reverse of our arms at Manassas does not surprise me. But there are 
to be very many fluctuations of opinion in Europe concerning our 
affairs before the Union will be in danger from any source. 

The insurgents are exhausting themselves. We are invigorated 
even by disappointment. To-day the capital is beyond danger, and 
forces are accumulating and taking on the qualities which will ren- 
der them invincible. Tlie Union armies are preparing for movements 
whicli will in a few weeks remove the war from the present frontier. 
The blockade is effective, and is working out the best fruits. 

We do not at present depart from that polic3% but we are prepar- 
ing for any emergency in our foreign relations. 

The sentiment of disunion is losing its expansive force, and every 
day it grows weaker as a physical power. 

I am, sir, respectfully, jovlv obedient servant, 

F. W. SEWARD, Assistaid Secretary. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seu-ard. 

No. 34.] Legation of the United States, 

London, August 30, 1861. 

Sir: It is not without regret that I am compelled to announce the 
failui'e of the negotiation, which I am led ])y the tenor of your 
despatches, Nos. 55 and 58, to infer you considered almost sure to suc- 
ceed. I have now the honor to transmit the copy of a note addressed 
by me to Lord Russell on the L'od instant, assigning the reasons why I 
felt it my duty to take the responsibility of declining to fix a da}' tor 
signing the convention agreed upon l)etween us, burdened, as it was 
to be, with a contemporaneous exposition of one of its provisions in 
the form of an outside declaration made hj his lordship on behalf of 
her Majesty the Queen. I have gone so fully into the matter in that 
note as to render further explanation unnecessary. At the same time 
I take the liberty to observe that in case the President should be of 
opinion that too much stress has been laid by me upon the objection- 
able character of that paper, an opening has been left by me for the 
resumption of the negotiation at any moment under new instructions 
modifying my views. 1 transmitted to Mr. Dayton a copy for his infor- 
mation immediately after the original was sent. I have not received 
any later inlelligenee from him, but I do not doubt that he will forward 
to the department by this mail his representation of the state of the 
corresponding negotiation at Paris, so that the whole subject will be 
under your ej'e at the same moment. From the tenor of his last note 
to me 1 was led to infer that M. Thouvenel contemplated a parallel 
proceeding in the conclusion of his negotiation, and that he regarded 
it there vei-y much in the same light that I did here. 

From a review of the whole course of these proceedings I am led to 
infertile existence of some influence in the cabinet here adverse to the 



74 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IK THE CIVIL WAR. 

success of this negotiation. At the time of nn' last conference with 
Lord Russell I had every reason, from his manner, to believe that he 
considered the offer of the project as perfectly satisfactory. The 
suggestion of a qualification did not make its appearance until after 
the consultation with liis colleagues, when it showed itself first in the 
enigmatical sentence of his note to me of the 31st of July, of which, 
in my despatch No. 22 to the department, I confessed my inability to 
comprehend the meaning, and afterwards in the foi-mal announce- 
ment contained in his note of the 19th of August. That the failure 
of tlie measure, by reason of it, could not have been altogether unex- 
pected I infer from Mr. Dayton's report to me of M. Thouvenel's 
language to liim, to the eft'ect that his government would prefer to 
lose the negotiation rather than to omit making tlie exception. 

Although the matter is not altogether germane to the preceding, I 
will not close this despatch without calling your attention to the copy 
of a letter of Lord John Russell to Mr. Edwardes, which I transmit 
as cut from a London newspaper, Tlie Globe. It purports to have 
been taken from ]3arliamentary papers just published, although I 
have not seen them, nor have I found it printed in any other news- 
paper. You will notice the date, the 14th of May, being the very day 
of my first visit to liis lordship in company with Mr. Dallas, when he 
did not see us, as well as of the publication of the Queen's proclama- 
tion. I have reason to believe that the original form of that procla- 
mation described the parties in America in much the same terms used 
by his Lordship, and that they were only qualified at a very late 
moment and after earnest remonstrance. The tone of the letter cor- 
responds ver}^ much with tliat used to me, a report of which was 
transmitted in my despatch No. 8. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William II. Seward, 

Secretary of State, WasJiiixjfo)}, D. C. 



Legation op the United States, 

London, August '23, 1861. 

The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary 
of the United States, has the honor to acknowledge the receptit)n of 
the note of tlie 10th instant of Lord Russell, her Majesty's principal 
secretary of state for foreign affairs, covering the copy of a declara- 
tion which his lordship proposes to make upon sighing the conven- 
tion whicli has been agreed uiDon between her Majesty the Queen of 
Great Britain and Ireland and the United States of America, embody- 
ing the articles of the declaration of Paris, and at the same time 
requesting him to name a day in the course of this Aveek for the sig- 
nature of the convention, \a conjunction with a similar proceeding to 
be arranged to take place at Paris between 3Ir. Dayton and the min- 
ister of foreign affairs on the part of the French government. 

The first step rendered necessary by this proposal was that the 
undersigned should communicate with Mr. Dayton in order to know 
whether a similar declaration was contemplated on the part of the 
Emperor of the French, and in case it was, whether Mr. Dayton was 
still prepared to proceed. Mr. Dayton's letter containing that infor- 
matioii was received only yesterday, which fact, in conjunction with 
a brief absence of the undersigned, will account for the apparent 
delay in answering his lordship's note. 



NEUTRALITY OF (4REAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 75 

In order perfectly to understand the position of tlie undersigned, it 
will be necessary briefly to recapitulate the i^articulars of this nego- 
tiation. But a few weeks after the accession of the President of the 
United States to oilice his attention was turned to the state in which 
the negotiation on the sul)ject of the four articles of the declaration of 
Paris had been left by his predecessor, and his disposition niajiifested 
itself to remove, so far as he could, the obstacles which had been inter- 
posed in the way of completing it. To that end, among the duties 
with which the undersigned was charged immediately upon his arrival 
at his post was an instruction at once to make overtures to her 
Majesty's government for a revival of the negotiations here. And in 
case of the manifestation of a favorable disposition, he was further 
directed to offer a proje(;t of a convention, whicli he was properly 
empowered to sign, after satisfying himself that the incorporation of 
the amendment which had been proposed bj" Mr. Marcy for the gov- 
ernment of the United States, at a former stage of the proceedings, 
was not attainable. 

On the eighteenth of Ma}' last, being the day of the first interview 
had with his lordship, the subject was onlj^ opened by the under- 
signed as one on which he had power to negotiate, and the disposition 
of her Majesty's government to proceed here was tested. It was then 
that he received a distinct impression from his lordship that the mat- 
ter had been already committed to the care of Lord Lyons, at Wash- 
ington, with authority to agree with the government of the LTnited 
States on the basis of the adoption of three of the articles and the 
omission of the fourth altogether. Considering this to be equivalent 
to declining a negotiation here and at the same time relieving him 
from a duty which would be better performed by his own government, 
the undersigned cheerful!}' acquiesced in this suggestion, and accord- 
ingly wrote home signifying his intention not to renew the subject 
unless again specificall,y instructed so to do. 

One month j)assed away, when the Secretary of State of the Ignited 
States, after a conference with Lord Lyons, learning that his lordshij) 
did not confirm the representation of the powers with Avhich the under- 
signed had understood him to be clothed, and, so far from it, that he did 
not feel authorized to enter into any convention at all at Washi»\';ton, 
directed the undersigned to inform the government in Lon'' ^ of this 
fact, and to jiropose once more to enter into convention, .l agreeable, 
here. 

Immediately upon the receipt of these instructions the undei'signed 
wrote a letter on the 11th of Ju\y, as his lordship may remember, recit- 
ing these facts and renewing the question whether a proposal of nego- 
tiation at this place would be acceptable to her Majesty's government. 
To this letter a favorable repl}' was received on the loth, and an 
interview took place the same day, at which, after ascertaining that 
the amendment desired by his government would not be successful, 
the undersigned had the honor to present to his lordship the project 
in the same form in which it had been, nearly two months before, 
placed in his hands, and in which it has been since accepted, and to 
offer a copy of his powers to negotiate. His lordship, after examin- 
ing the former, remarked that he would take it for consultation with 
his colleagues, and in the meantime that there was no necessitj- for a 
copy of the powers. 

The next step in the negotiation was the receipt, by the undersigned, 
of a letter from his lordship, dated the 18th of Jn\y, calling his atten- 
tion to the fact that the declaration of Paris contemplated a concur- 
rence of various powers, and not an insulated engagement of two 



76 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

powers only, and reqniring an assurance that the United States were 
ready to enter into a similar engagement with France and with other 
maritime powers, parties to the declaration, and not with Great Britain 
alone. But inasmuch as this process itself might involve the loss of 
much time, that her Majesty's government would deem themselves 
authorized to advise the Queen to conclude a convention with the 
President of the United so soon as they should have been informed 
that a similar convention has been agreed upon between the President 
and the Emperor of the French. 

Upon receiving this reply the undersigned, not unwilling to do 
everything within his power to forward an object considered by him 
of the greatest value, immediately opened a correspondence with Mr. 
Dayton, the i-epresentative of the United States at Paris, to learn from 
him whether such an arrangement, as that contemplated in his lord- 
ship's note could not be at once carried out by him. With some 
reluctance Mr. Dayton conseuucd to promote it, but only upon the 
production of evidence satisfactory to his own mind that the amend- 
ment originally proposed by Mr. Marcy was not attainable. The 
undersigned then addressed himself to his lordship, and with entire 
success. The evidence was obtained, Mr. Dayton acted with success, 
and no further difficulties then seemed to be in the way of a speedy 
and simultaneous affirmation of concurrence in the principles of the 
declaration of Paris by the United States in conjunction with the other 
powers. 

The public law thus declared to be established embraced four gen- 
eral propositions, to wit: 

1. I*rivateering is abolished. 

2. The neutral flag covers enemy's goods, except contraband of war. 

3. Neutral goods safe under an enemy's flag, with the same excep- 
tion. 

4. Blockades, to be binding, must be effective. 

The government of the United States, in proposing to join in the 
€stal)]ishment of these principles, are believed by the undersigned to 
be acting with the single purpose of aiding to establish a permanent 
doctrine for all time. Convinced of the value of it in ameliorating 
the horrors of warfare all over the globe, they have, perhaps against 
their notions of their immediate interest, consented to waive temporary 
considerations of expediency for the attainment of a great ultimate 
good. Tliey are at last i:)repared to sign and seal an engagement 
pure and simple, and bj^so doing to sacrifice the hope of attaining, at 
least for the present, an improvement of it to which tliey have always 
attaclied great value. But just at the moment when their concur- 
rence with the views of the other maritiuie powers of the world would 
seem to be certain, they are met with a proposition from one, if not 
more, of the parties, to accompany tlie act with a proceeding some- 
what novel and anonmlous in this case, being the presentation of a 
written declaration, not making a part of the convention itself, but 
intended to follow the signature, to the effect that " her Majesty does 
not intend thereby to undertake any engagement which shall have 
any bearing, direct or indirect, on the internal differences now pre- 
vailing in the United States." 

Obviouslj^ a consent to accept a particular exception susceptible of 
so wide a construction of a joint instrument made b^^ one of the par- 
ties to it in its own favor at the time of signing would justify the idea 
that some advantage is or may be suspected to be intended to be taken 
by the other. The natural effect of such an accompaniment would 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 77 

seem to be to imply that the government of the United States might 
be desirous at this time to take a i)art in tlie declaration, not from any 
high purpose or dui-able policy, but Avith the view of securing some 
small tenipoiary object in the unhappy struggle which is going on at 
liome. Such an inference would spoil all the value that might be 
attached to the act itself. The mei-e toleration of it would seem to be 
equivalent to a confession of their own weakness. Rather than that 
such a record should be made it wereatliousand times better that the 
declaration remain unsigned forever. If the parties to the instrument 
are not to sign it upon terms of perfect reciprocity, with all their 
duties and obligations under it perfectly equal and without equivo- 
cation or reservation of any kind on any side, then is it plain that 
the proper season for such an engai.ement has not yet arrived. It 
were much wiser to put it off until nations can understand each other 
better. 

There is another reason why the undersigned cannot at thismomeiit 
consent to proceed under the powers conferred on him to complete 
this negotiation when clogged wiih such a declaration, which is drawn 
from the peculiar construction of the governmenl of his own counti-y. 
By the terms of the Constitution, every treaty negotiated by the Presi- 
dent of the United States must, before it is ratified, be submitted to 
the consideration of the Senate of the United States. The question 
immediately arises in this case, what is to be done with a declaration 
like that which his lordship proposes to make? Is it a part of the 
treaty, or is it not? If it be, then is the undersigned exceeding his 
instructions in signing it, for the paper made no iDart of the project 
which he was directed to propose; and in case he should sign, the 
addition must be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent, 
together with the pai)er itself. If it be not, what advantage can the 
party nuiking the declaration expect fi'om it in modifying the con- 
struction of the project, when the Senate have never had it before 
them for their approval? It either changes the treaty or it does not. 
If it does, then the question arises, why did not the undersigned pro- 
cure it to be incorporated into it? On the other hand, if it do not, 
why did he connive at the appearance of a desire to do it without 
effecting the object? 

The undersigned has ever been desirous of maintaining and per- 
petuating the most friendly relations between her Majesty's kingdom 
and the United States, and he continues to act in the same spirit 
when he depi*ecates the submission of any project clogged with'a simi- 
lar exception to the consideration of the Senate of the United States. 
He has reason to believe that already a strong disinclination exists 
in that body to the acceptance of the first of the four propositions 
embraced in the declaration itself, and that mainly because it is 
esteemed to be too much of a concession to the great maritime powers. 
Were he now to consent, Avithout further instructions, to accept a 
qualification which would scarcely fail to be regarded by numy unfa- 
vorably disposed persons as more or less directly an insult to the 
nation in its present distress, he should deem himself as incurring the 
hazard of bringing on difHculties which he professes an earnest wish 
to avoid. 

For the reasons thus given the undersigned has reluctantly come to 
the conclusion to decline to fix a day for proceeding in the negotiation, 
under its present aspect, at least, until he shall have been able to sub- 
mit the whole question once more to the judgment of the authorities 
under which he has the honor to act. 



78 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

A copy of tliis letter will also be forwarded to Mr. Dayton for his 
information. 

Tiie undersigned prays Lord Russell to receive the assurances of the 
most distinguished consideration with which he is his obedient servant. 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Right Hon. Earl Russell, &'c., &c., &c. 



Lord Russell to Mr. Edwards. 

Foreign Office, May iJk, 1861. 

It is for the Spanish government to weigh in the balance of their 
judgment the advantages and inconveniences which may arise from 
the annexation of the territory of the Dominican state to the dominions 
of Spain; and an}^ opinion which her Majesty's government may form 
on the subject can be founded on no other consideration than a regard 
for what they may look upon as the real and permanent interests of 
Spain. 

Iler Majesty's government would, no doubt, have felt a strong and 
decided dissatisfaction at the proposed annexation if it had been likelj' 
to lead to the introduction of slavery into a community which is free 
from the taint of that pernicious institution ; but the formal and repeated 
declarations of Marshal O'Donnell that under no circumstances will 
slavery be introduced into the Dominican territory have removed the 
main cause which would have led her Majesty's government to view 
the proposed annexation with dislike and repugnance. 

Her Majesty's government certainly apprehended, when first this 
projected annexation was talked of, that it might, if carried into execu- 
tion, involve Spain in unfriendly' discussions, if not in conflict, either 
with France or with the United States, or with both. With regard to 
France, her Majesty's government have not learned that the French gov- 
ernment luis expressed any positive objection to the jjroposed arrange- 
ment, although she ma}^ not think it advantageous to Spain. It appears, 
also, from what has been stated to you, that there is no probability at 
present of any positive resistance to tlie measure, either by the northern 
or the southern confederation of North America. But the Spanish 
government should not too confidently rely on the pei'manent continu- 
ance of this indifference or acquiescence on the part of the North 
Americans; and it is not impossible that when the civil war which is 
now breaking out shall have been brought to an end, an event which 
may happen sooner than at present appears likely, both the north and 
the south might combine to make the occupation of the Dominican 
territory b}^ Spain the cause of serious difference between the North 
American governments and that of Spain. 

Her Majesty's government do not deny that Great Britain, as a power 
natually inclined to peace, and sj^stematically addicted to commerce, 
must always view a war between any two powers as an event not only 
at variance with her principles, but to a certain degree injurious to 
her interests. But with respect to Sjjain the motives of the British 
government spring from far higher sources. Great Britain and Spain 
have for long periods of time, and in circumstances of high moment 
to each, been faithful and active allies; their alliance has been greatly 
useful and eminently honorable to both. It is a fundamental maxim 
of British policy to wish well to Spain, and earnestly to desire her 
welfare and i^rosjaerity; and therefore any combination of events 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR, 79 

whicli might at any time involve the possibility of Sjiain being engaged 
in a conflict which, from local circumstances and disadvantages, might 
be in the end seriously injurious to her rule over her ancient posses- 
sions would be viewed by her Majestj^'s government with lively 
apprehension and sincere regret. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

[Extracts.] 

No. 78.] Department of State, 

Wasliingfon, September 2, ISUl. 
Sir: You despatch of the IGth of August, number 29, has been 
received. 

* * ***** 

Steadily for the period of four months our forces have been coming 
into the field at the i-ate of two thousand a day, and the same augmen- 
tation will go on nearly at the same rate until 500,000 men will be 
found in the survice. Our supplies of arms are running low. 

My despatch, No. 42, acknowledged by you in the paper before me, 
was written, as you will see by its date, July 21, during the progress 
of the battle at bull Run, though sent a few days afterwards. From 
this fact you will see that our policy and our claims upon the govern- 
ment of Great Britain are not affected by the caprices of military 
fortune. 

We have now reached a new and important stage in the war. The 
enemy is directly before us, invigorated and inspirited by a victory, 
which it is not the part of wisdom for us to undervalue. But that 
victory has brought with it the necessity for renewed and decisive 
action with proportionate results. The demoralization of our forces 
has passed away. I have already stated that they are increasing in 
numbers. You will learn through other channels that they are equally 
perfecting tliemselves in discipline. Commander Sti-ingham and Gen- 
eral Butler's success at Hatteraswas not merely a brilliant affair. It 
brings nearly the whole coast of North Carolina under the surveillance 
of our blockade. ****** 

I shall be entirely satisfied with the exercise of your own discretion 
as to the time and form you may choose for making the explanations 
to the I3ritish government on those subjects with which you are 
charged, and I regard the condition of things in that respect, as you 
have reported it to me, as, under the circumstances, quite satisfac- 
tory. No change of policy in regard to the blockade has been adopted 
since my former despatches. 

I can well enough imagine that your position has been made a trj'- 
ing one by the exultations of enemies of our country and its institu- 
tions over the disaster of the 21st of July. But you will be able to 
comprehend what they cannot, that faction ripens fast, whence its 
necessities impel to action which exhausts its energies. Loyalty in 
any free country organizes less rapidly and gains strength from time 
and even from reverses. The previous success of this government is 
a sufficient guaranty of the safet}' of our cause, and is a fact too 
important to be misunderstood in the political circle in which you are 
moving. 

i am, sir, respectfully, you obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c. 



80 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

No. 83.] Department of State, 

Wasliiiujton, Sfptemher 7, 1861. 

Sir: I have received j'oiir despatch of August 23 (Xo. 32). It is 
accompanied by a note which was addressed to you l)y Lord Russell 
on tlie 19th of the same montli, and a paper containing the form of an 
official declaration, which he proposes to make on the part of her 
Majesty on the occasion of affixing his signature to the projected 
convention between the United States and Great Britain for the 
accession of the former power to the articles of tlie declaration of the 
congress of Paris for the melioration of the rigor of international law 
in regard to neutrals in maritime war. The instrument thus sub- 
mitted to us by Lord Russell is in the following words: "Draft of 
declaration. — In affixing his signature to tlie convention of this day, 
between her Majesty the (^ueen of Great Britain and Ireland and the 
LTnited States of America, the Earl Russell declares, by order of her 
Majesty, that her Majesty does not intend thereby to undertake any 
engagement which shall have any bearing, direct or indirect, on the 
internal differences now prevailing in the United States." 

Lord Russell, in his note to you, explains the object of the instru- 
ment hy saying that it is intended to prevent any misconception as to 
the nature of the engagement to be taken by her Majesty. 

You have judged \evy rightly in considering this proceeding, on 
the part of the British government, as one so grave and so novel in its 
character as to render further action on your pai-t in regard to the 
projected convention inadmissible until you shall have special in- 
structions from tills department. 

Long before the present communication can reach you my instruc- 
tions of August 17 (Xo. tjl) will have come to your hands. That paper 
directed you to ask Lord Russell to explain a passage in a note writ- 
ten to you, and then lying before me, in which he said: "I need 
scarcely add that on the part of Great Britain the engagement (to be 
contained in the projected convention) will be prospective, and will 
not invalidate an^^thing alread}' done;" which explanation I stated 
would be expected as a preliminarj^ before 3'Ou could proceed further 
in the transaction. 

You have thus been alreadj^ pi-epared for the information that your 
resolution to await special instructions in the i^resent emergency is 
approved. 

I feel myself at liberty, perhaps bound, to assume that Lord Rus- 
sell's proposed declaration, which I have herein recited, will have 
been already regarded, as well by him as by yourself, as sufficiently 
answering the request for preliminary explanations which you were 
instructed to make. 

I maj' therefore assume that the case is full}- before me, and that 
the question whether this government will consent to enter into the 
projected treaty with Great Britain, subject to the condition of admit- 
ting the simultaneous declaration on her Majesty's part ijroposed by 
Lord Russell, is ready to be decided. 

I am instructed by the President to say that the proposed declara- 
tion is inadmissible. 

It would be virtually a new and distinct article incorporated into 
the projected convention. To admit such anew article would, for the 
first time in the history of the LTnited States, be to permit a foreign 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIV^IL WAR. 81 

power to take cognizance of and adjust its relations upon assumed 
internal and purely" domestic differences existing within our own 
countr3\ 

This broad consideration suj^ersedes an}' necessity for considering 
in what manner or in what degree the projected convention, if com- 
pleted either subject to the explanation proposed or not, would bear 
directly or indirectly on the internal differences wliich the British gov- 
ernment assume to be iDrevailing in the United States. 

I do not enlarge uj^on this branch of the subject. It is enough to 
say that the view thus adopted by the President seems to be in har- 
mony equally with a prudent regard to the safety of the republic and 
a just sense of its honor and dignity. 

The proposed declaration is inadmissible, among othei- reasons, 
because it is not mutual. It proposes a special rule by which her 
Majesty's obligations shall be nieliorated in their bearing upon inter- 
nal difliculties now prevailing in the United States, Avhile the obliga- 
tions to be assumed by the United States shall not be similarly melio- 
rated or at all affected in their bearing on internal differences that may 
now be prevailing or may hereafter arise and prevail in (4reat Britain. 

It is inadmissible because it would be a sul)stantial and even a 
radical departure from the declaration of the congress at Paris. That 
declaration makes no exception in favor of any of the parties to it in 
regard to the bearing of their obligations upon internal differences 
Avhich may prevail in the territories or dominions of other parties. 

The declaration of the congress of Paris is the joint act of forty-six 
great and enlightened powers designing to alleviate the evils of mari- 
time war and promote the first interest of humanit}', which is peace. 
The government of (Ireat Britain will not, I am sure, expect us to 
accede to this noble act otherwise than upon the same equal footing 
upon which all the other parties to it are standing. We could not 
consent to accede to the declaration with a modification of its terms 
unless all the present parties to it should stipulate that the modifica- 
tion should be adopted as one of universal application. The British 
government cannot but know^ that there would be little prospect of an 
entire reformation of the declaration of Paris at the present time, and 
it has not even told us that it would accept the modification as a gen- 
eral one if it were proposed. 

It results that the United States must accede to the declaration of 
the congress of Paris on the same terms with all the other parties to 
it, or that they do not accede to it at all. 

You will present these considerations to Lord Russell, not as argu- 
ments why the Bi-itish government ought to recede from the position 
it has assumed, but as the grounds upon which the United States 
decline to enter into the projected convention recognizing that excep- 
tional position of her Majesty. 

If, therefore, her Britannic Majesty's government shall adhere to 
the proposition thus disallowed, you will inform Lord Russell that the 
negotiation must for the present be suspended. 

I forbear purposely from a review of the past correspondence to 
ascertain the relative responsibilities of the parties for this failure of 
negotiations from which I had hoped results would flow beneficial, 
not onl}^ to the two nations, l^ut to the whole world — beneficial, not in 
the present age only, but in future ages. 

It is my desire that we may withdraw from the subject carrying 
away no feelings of passion, x^rejudice, or jealousy, so that in some 

S. Doc. 18 6 



82 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

happier time it may be resumed and the important objects of the 
proposed convention may be full}' secui-ed. I believe that the jjropi- 
tious tiuie is even now not distant, and I will hope that when it comes 
Great Britain will not only willingij" and unconditionally accept the 
adhesioii of the United States to all the benignant articles of the 
declaration of the congress of Paris, but will even go further, and, 
relinquishing her present objections, consent, as the United States 
have so constantly invited, that the private property, not contraband, 
of citizens and subjects of nations in collision shall ])e exempted from 
confiscation equally in warfare waged on the land and in warfare 
waged upon the seas, which are the common highway's of all nations. 

Regarding this negotiation as at an end, the question arises, what, 
then, are to be the views and policy of the United States in regard to 
the rights of neutrals in maritime war in the present case? My pre- 
vious despatches leave no uncertainty upon this point. We regard 
Great Britain as a friend. Iler Majesty's flag, according to our tradi- 
tioual principles, covers enemj^'s goods not contraband of war. Goods 
of her Majesty's subjects, not contraband of war, are exempt from 
confiscation, though found under a neutral or disloyal flag. No dej^re- 
dations shall be committed by our naval forces or by those of anj' of 
our citizens, so far as we can prevent it, upon the vessels or property 
of British subjects. Our blockade, being effective, must be respected. 

The unfortunate failure of our negotiations to amend the law of 
nations in regard to maritime war does not make us enemies, although, 
if they had been successful, we should have perhaps been more assured 
friends. 

Civil war is a calamity from which certainly no people or nation 
that has ever existed has been alwaj^s exempt. It is one which prob- 
abh^ no nation ever will escape. Perhaps its most injurious trait is 
its "tendency to subvert the good understanding and break up the 
relations existing between the distracted state and friendly nations, 
and to involve them, sooner or later, in war. It is the desire of the 
United States that the internal differences existing in this country 
may be confined within our own bordei-s. I do not sulfer mj^self for 
a moment to doubt that Great Britain has a desire that we may be 
successful in attaining that object, and that she looks with dread 
upon the possibility of being herself drawn into this unhappy internal 
controversy^ of our own. I do not think it can be regarded as disre- 
spectful if you should remind Lord Russell that when, in 1838, a civil 
war broke out in Canada, a part of the British dominions adjacent 
to the United States, the Congress of the United States passed and 
the President executed a law which efliectuall}^ prevented any inter- 
vention against the Government of Great Britain in those internal 
differences by American citizens, whatever might be their motives, 
real or pretended, whether of interest or sympathy. I send you a 
copy of that enactment. The British government will judge for itself 
whether it is suggestive of any measures on the part of Great Britain 
that might tend to preserve the peace of the two countries, and, 
through that way, the peace of all nations. 

I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c. 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAlJf IN THE CIVIL WAR. 83 

Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 

[Extracts.] 

No. 30.] Legation of the United States, 

London, September 7, 1861. 

Sir: I have tlie honor to acknowledge the reception of despatches 
from the department, nnnibered from (51 to 67, both inclusive. 

Since the date of your No. 61, of the 17tli of August, you will have 
learned ere this that the enigmatical extract from Lord Russell's note 
to me, of which you instructed me to ask an explanation, has taken a 
very distinct and unequivocal shape, superseding all necessity for 
further inquiry. I may take occasion to remark upon the similarity 
of some of the reasoning in your despatch with that which you will 
find already made use of in my letter to his lordship of the 23d August, 
declining to conclude the negotiation. On the whole, it seems to me 
that it is perhaps as well to let it stay for the present in the situation 
in which her Majesty's ministers have placed it. But in this I remain 
to be directed at the pleasure of the President. 

In this connexion I have the honor to transmit a copy of Lord Rus- 
sell's note of the 28th of August in reply to mine of tlie 23tl of that 
month to him, already referred to in the preceding paragi-aph. I like- 
wise send a copy of his instructions to Lord Lyons, whicli he seems to 
have furnished to me as an evidence of his good faith in the repre- 
sentation he made of them to me at the conference. 

****** ^■ 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, }Vashingto)i , D. C. 



Foreign Office, Augustus, 1861. 

The undersigned, her Majesty's priacipal secretary of state for for- 
eign affairs, has had the honor to receive the note, oi the 23d instant, 
of Mr. Adams, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of 
the United States. 

Mr. Adams has accounted satisfactorily for the delay in answering 
the note of the undersigned of the 19th instant. Her Majesty's gov- 
ernment in all these transactions has acted in concert with the govern- 
ment of the Emperor of the French, and the undersigned cannot be 
surprised that Mr. Adams should wish to communicate with Mr. Day- 
ton at Paris before replying to his note. 

The undersigned is quite prepared, following Mr. Adams, to recapit- 
nlate the particulars of this negotiation, and he is happy to think that 
in matters of fact there is no ground for any controversy between 
them. He need only supply omissions. 

Mr. Adams, at his first interview with the undersigned, on the 18th 
of May last, mentioned the subject of the declaration of Paris as one 
on which he had power to negotiate, and the undersigned then told 
him that the matter had been already committed to the care of Lord 
Lyons, at Washington, with authority to agree with the government 
of the United States on the basis of the adoption of three of the articles 
and the omission of the first, being that relating to privateering. So 
far, the statement of Mr. Adams agrees substantially with that which 



84 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

is here made. But the representation of the undersigned was strictly 
accurate, and in faith of it he subjoins the despatcli by which Lord • 
Lyons was authorized to negotiate on the basis of the three latter 
articles of the declaration of Paris. Lord Lyons, however, was not 
empowered to sign a convention, because that form had not been 
adopted by the powers who originally signed the declaration, nor by 
any of the numerous states which afterwards gave their adherence to 
its articles. 

At a later period, when Mr. Adams brought a copy of his ful powers 
to the foreign office, tlie undersigned asked why the adherence of the 
United States should not be given in the same form as that of other 
powers, and he was told in reply that as the Constitution of the Ignited 
States required the consent of the Senate to any agreement with for- 
eign powers that agreement must necessarily, or at least would most 
conveniently, be made in the shape of a convention. 

The undei'signed yielded to this argument, and proposed to the gov- 
ernment of the Empeior of the French, with which her Majesty's gov- 
ernment have been acting throughout in complete agreement, to concur 
likewise in this departure from the form in wliich the declaration of 
Paris had been adopted by the maritime powers of Europe. 

But the British government could not sign the convention proposed 
by the United States as an act of Great Britain singly and alone, and 
they found to their surprise that in case of France and of some of the 
other European powers the addition of Mr. Marcy relating to private 
•property at sea had been proposed bj' the ministers of the United 
States at the courts of those powers. 

The undersigned concui-s in the statement made by Mr. Adams 
respecting the transactions which followed. Her Majesty's govern- 
ment, like Mr. Adams, wished to establish a doctrine for all time with 
a view to lessen the horrors of war all over the globe. The instruc- 
tions sent to Lord Lyons prove the sincerity' of their wish to give 
permanence and fixity of princii^les to this part of the law of nations. 

The undersigned has now arrived at that part of the subject upon 
wliich the negotiation is interrupted. 

The undersigned has notified Mr. Adams his intention to accompany 
his signature of the proposed convention with a declaration to the 
effect that her Majesty "does not intend thereby to undertake any 
engagement which shall have any benring, direct or indirect, on the 
internal differences now prevailing in the United States." 

The reasons for this course can be easily explained. On some 
recent occasions, as on the fulfilment of the treaty of 181(>, respecting 
the boundary, and with respect to the treat}' called by tlie name of 
the " Clayton-Bulwer treaty," serious differences have arisen with 
regard to the precise meaning of words and the intention of those who 
framed them. 

It was most desirable in framing a new agreement not to give rise 
to a fresh dispute. 

But the different attitude of Great Britain and of the United States 
in regard to the internal dissensions now unhappil\' prevailing in the 
United States gave warning that such a dispute might arise out of the 
proposed convention. 

Her Majesty's government, upon receiving intelligence that the 
President had declared by proclamation his intention to blockade the 
ports of nine of the States of the Union, and that Mr. Davis, speaking 
in the name of those nine States, had declared his intention to issue 
letters of marque and reprisals, and having also received certain 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 85 

information of the design of both sides to arm, had come to the con- 
clusion that civil war existed in America, and her Majesty had there- 
upon proclaimed her neutrality in the approaching contest. 

The government of the United States, on the other hand, spoke only 
of unlawful combinations, and designated those concerned in them as 
rebels and pirates. It would follow logically and consistently, from 
the attitude taken by her Majesty's government, that the so-called 
Confederate States, being acknowledged as a belligerent, might, by 
the law of nations, arm privateers, and that their ijrivateers must be 
regarded as the armed vessels of a belligerent. 

With equal logic and consistency it would follow, from the position 
taken bj' the United States, that the privateei'S of the southern States 
might be decreed to be pirates, and it might be further argued bj' the 
government of the United States that a European power signing a con- 
vention with the United States, declaring that privateering was and 
remains abolished, would be bound to treat the privateers of the 
so-called Confederate States as pirates. 

Hence, instead of an agreement, charges of bad faith and violation 
of a convention might be brought in the United States against the 
power signing such a convention and treating the privateers of the 
so-called Confederate States as those of a belligerent power. 

The undersigned had at first intended to make verbally the declara- 
tion proposed. But he considered it would be more clear, more open, 
more fair to Mr. Adams to put the declaration in writing, and give 
notice of it to Mr. Adams before signing the convention. 

The undersigned will not now reply to the reasons given by Mr. 
Adams for not signing the convention if accompanied by the proposed 
declaration. Her Majesty's government wish the question to be fairly 
weighed by the United States government. The undersigned, like 
Mr. Adams, wishes to maintain and perpetuate the most friendly rela- 
tions between her Majesty's kingdom and the United States. It is in 
this spirit that her Majesty's government decline to bind themselves 
without a clear explanation on their part to a convention which, 
seeminglj' confined to an adoption of the declaration of Paris of 185G, 
might i^e construed as an engagement to interfere in the unhappy dis- 
sensions now prevailing in the United States — an interference which 
would be contrar}^ to her Majesty's public declarations, and would be 
a reversal of the policy which her Majesty has deliberately sanctioned. 

The undersigned requests Mr. Adams to accept the assurance of his 
highest consideration. 

RUSSELL. 

C. F. Adams, Esq., c€'e., &c., &c. 



No. 136.] FOREIC4N Office, Maij 18, 1861. 

My Lord : Her Majestj^'s government deeply lament the outbreak 
of hostilities in North America, and they would gladly lend their aid 
to the restoration of peace. 

You are instructed, therefore, in case you should be asked to employ 
your good offices, either singly or in conjunction with the representa- 
tives of other powers, to give your assistance in promoting the work 
of reconciliation. But, as it is most probable, especially after a recent 
letter of Mr. Seward, that foreign advice is not likely to be accepted, 
you will refrain from offering it unasked. Such being the case, and 
supposing the contest not to be at once ended by signal success on 



86 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

one side or by the retiii'ii of friendly feeling betAveen the two contend- 
ing parties, her Majesty's government have to consider what will 
be the position of Great Britain as a neutral between the two 
belligerents. 

So far as the position of Great Britain in this respect toward the 
European powers is concerned, that position has been greatly modi- 
fied bj' the declaration of Paris of April 16, 1856. That declaration 
was signed by the ministers of Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, 
Russia, Sardinia, and Turkey. 

The motives for making that declaration and for agreeing to the 
articles of maritime law which it proposes to inti-oduce with a view to 
the establishment of a " uniform doctrine" and "fixed principles," 
are thus shortly enumerated in the declaration: 

"Considering that maritime law in time of war has long been the 
subject of deplorable disputes; 

"That the uncertainty of the la\¥ and of the duties in such a matter 
gives rise to dift'erences of opinion between neutrals and belligerents 
which may occasion serious difficulties and even confiicts; 

"That it is consequently advantageous to establish a uniform doc- 
trine on so important a j)oint; 

"That the plenipotentiaries assembled in Congress at Paris cannot 
better respond to the intentions by which their governments are ani- 
mated than by seeking to introduce into international relations fixed 
principles in this respect— 

"The above-mentioned plenipotentiaries, being duly authorized, 
resolved to concert among themselves as to the means of attaining this 
object, and having come to an agreement have adopted the following 
solemn declaration:" 

1st. Privateering is and remains abolished. 

2d. The neutral fiag covers enemy's goods, with the exception of 
contraband of war. 

od. Neutral's goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are 
not liable to capture under enemy's flag. 

4th. Blockades, in order to be bindiiig, must be effective — that is to 
say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the 
coast of the enemy. 

The j)owers signing the declaration engaged to bring it to the knowl- 
edge of the states which had not taken part in the congress of Paris, 
and to invite those states to accede to it. They finallj' agreed that 
"the present declaration is not and shall not be binding, except 
between those powers who have acceded or shall accede to it." 

The powers which acceded to the declaration are Baden, Bavaria, 
Belgium, Bi-emen, Brazil, Duchj^ of Brunswick, Chili, the Argentine 
Confederation, the Germanic Confederation, Denmark, the Two Sici- 
lies, the Republic of the Equator, the Roman States, Greece, Guate- 
mala, Ilayti, Hamburg, Hanover, the Two Hesses, Lubeck, Mecklen- 
burg Strelitz, Mecklenburg Sell werin, Nassau, Oldenburs:, Parma, Hol- 
land, Peru, Portugal, Saxony, Saxe Attenburg, Saxe Coburg Gotha, 
Saxe Meiningen, Saxe Weimer, Sweden, Switzerland, Tuscany, Wur- 
temburg, Anhalt Dessau, Modena, New Grenada, and Maguay 

Mr. Secretary Marcy, in acknowledging, on the 28th of July, 1856, 
the communication of the declaration of Paris made to the Government 
of the Tnited States by the Count de Sartiges, proposed to add to the 
first article thereof the following words: "and that the private prop- 
erty of the subjects or citizens of a belligerent on the high seas shall 
be exempted from seizure by public armed vessels of the other bel- 



NEUTKALITY OF GREAT BKITAIN TTST THE CIVIL WAR. 87 

ligerents, except it be contraband;" and Mr. Marcy expressed the 
willingness of the government of the United kStates to adopt the 
clause so amended, together with the other three principles contained 
in the declaration. 

Mr. Marcy also stated that he was directed to communicate the 
approval of the President of the second, third, and fourth t)roposi- 
tions, independently of the first, should the proposed amendment of 
the first article be unacceptable. 

The United States minister in London on the 24th of February, 
1857, renewed the proposal in regard to the first article, and submit- 
ted a draft of convention, in which the article so amended would be 
embodied with the other three articles. But before anj^ decision was 
taken on this proposal a change took i)lace in the American govern- 
ment by the election of anew President of the United States, and Mr. 
Dallas announced, on the 25th of April, 1857, that he was directed to 
suspend negotiations on the subject. Up to the present time those 
negotiations have not been renewed. 

The consequence is that, the United States remaining outside the 
provisions of the declaration of Paris, the uncertainty of the law and 
of international duties with regard to such matters maj' give rise to 
differences of opinion between neutrals and belligerents which may 
occasion serious difficulties and even conflicts. 

It is with a view to remove beforehand such "difficulties" and to 
prevent such "conflicts" that I now address you. 

For this purpose I proceed to remark on the four articles, beginning, 
not with the first, but with the last. 

In a letter to the Earl of Clarenden of the 24tli of Februaiy, 1857, 
Mr. Dallas, the minister of the United States, while submitting the 
draft of a new convention, explains the views of the govei-nment of 
the United States on the four articles. 

In reference to the last article he says: "The fourth of those prin- 
ciples, respecting blockades, liad, it is believed, long since become a 
fixed rule of the law of war." 

There can be no difference of opinion, therefore, with regard to the 
fourth article. 

With respect to the third article, tlie principle laid down in it has 
long been recognized as law, both in Great Britain and in the United 
States. Indeed, this part of tlie law is stated by Chancellor Kent to 
be uniform in the two countries. 

With respect to the second article, Mr. Dallas says, in the letter 
before quoted: "About two yeai'S prior to the meeting of congress at 
Paris negotiations had been originated and were in train with the 
maritime nations for tlie adoption of the second and third proposi- 
tions substantially' as enumerated in the declaration." 

The United States have therefore no objection in principle to the 
second proposition. 

Indeed her Majesty's government have to remark that this principle 
is adopted in the treaties between the United States and Russia of the 
22d of July, 1854, and was sanctioned by the United States in the 
earliest period of the history of their independence by their accession 
to the armed neutrality. 

With Great Britain the case has been different. She formerly con- 
tended for the opposite principles as the established rule of the law 
of nations. 

But having, in 1851), upon full consideration, determined 1o depart 
from that rule, she means to adhere to the principle she then adoi^ted. 



88 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

The United Slates, who have always desired this change, can, it may 
be presumed, have no difficulty in assenting to the principle set forth 
in the second article of the declaration of Paris. 

There remains only to be considered tlie first article, namelj^ that 
relating to piivateei-ing, from which the government of the United 
States withhold their assent. Under these circumstances it is exjje- 
dient to consider what is required on this subject by the general law 
of nations. Now, it must be borne in mind that pi-ivateers bearing 
the flag of one or oiher of the belligerents may be manned by lawless 
and abandoned men, who may commit, for the sake of plunder, the 
most destructive and sanguinai-y outrages. 

There can be no question but that the commander and crew of the 
ship bearing a letter of marque must, by law of nations, carry on their 
hostilities according to the established laws of war. Her Majesty's 
government must, therefore, hold any government issuing such let- 
ters of marque responsible for, and liable to make good, any losses 
sustained by her Majesty's subjects in consequence of wrongful pro- 
ceeding of vessels sailing under such letters of marque. 

In this way the object of the declaration of Paris may, to a certain 
extent, be attained without the adoption of any new principle. 

You will urge these views upon Mr. Seward. 

The proposals of her Majesty's government are made with a view 
to limit and restrain that destruction of property and that interrup- 
tion of trade which must, in a greater or less degree, be the inevi- 
table consequence of the present hostilities. Her Majesty's govern- 
ment expect that these proposals will be received by the United States 
government in a friendly spirit. H" such shall be the case, you will 
endeavor (in concert with M. Mercier) to come to an agreement on 
the subject binding France, Great Britain, and the United States. 

If these proposals should, however, be rejected, her Majesty's gov- 
ernment will consider what other steps should be taken with a view 
to protect from wrong and injury the trade and the property and 
persons of British subjects. 
I am, &C'., tfec, <fec., 

J. RUSSELL. 

The Lord Lyons. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seirard. 

No. 41.] Legation op the LTnited States, 

London, September 9, 1861. 
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the reception at the hands of 
your messenger, Captain Schultz, of a bag purporting to contain pub- 
lic despatches from Mr. Robert Bunch, the consul at Charleston, to 
Lord Russell, the head of the foreign office in London. In conformity 
with the instructions contained in your No. o, dated the 17th of Au- 
gust, I immediately addressed a note to Lord Russell, explanatory of 
the reasons why such a bag was received through this channel, a copy 
of which is herewith transmitted. In it you will perceive tliat I have 
endeavored to adhei-e as closely as possible to the language of your 
communication to me. At the same time, in obedience to tlie direc- 
tions contained in your No. G-4, dated the 17th of August, I addressed 
another note to his lordship stating the grounds of dissatisfaction felt 
by the President with the conduct of iMr. Bunch, and requesting his 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 89 

removal. A copy of this note is likewise appended to the present 
despatch. These two notes, together with the bag in exactly the same 
condition in which I received it from Captain Schnltz, I directed mj^ 
assistant secretary, JMr. Benjamin Moran, to take with him to the for- 
eign office, and there to deliver into the hands of his lordsliip if pres- 
ent, or, if absent from town, into those of one of her Majesty's under sec- 
retaries of state for foreign affairs. Accordingly, on the afternoon of 
Tuesday, the 4th instant, at about quarter past three o'clock, as Mr. 
Moran reports to me, he went to the foreign office, and, finding Lord 
Russell to be absent from town, he delivered the bag and notes into the 
hands of Mr. Layard, one of the under secretaries." Since that time I 
have had no reply from liis lordship, although 1 received on Saturday 
last two notes from him on matters of minor consequence. I had hoped 
to send something by Captain Schultz, who returns in the Great 
Eastern, and I shall yet do so if it should come befoi-e the bag closes. 
I have consented to the departure of Captain Schultz, mainly because 
Mr. Dayton has expressed a great desire that he should take charge 
of his despatches as soon as possible. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Wasliingfon, D. C. 

P. S. — I have just learned from Mr. Davy that the Bermuda put 
into Falmouth for coals. Her cargo in arms, ammunition, and cloth- 
ing is valued at £80,000 sterling. The importance of intercepting 
her cannot be overestimated. 



Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. 

Legation of the United States, 

London, September 3, 1861. 

My Lord: I have the honor to inform your lordship that I have 
received by the hands of a special messenger of the government just 
arrived in the steamer P]ui'opa from the United States a sealed bag 
marked Foreign Office, o, Avith two labels, as follows: 

"On her Britannic Majestj^'s service. The right honorable the 
Lord John Russell, M. P., &c., &c., &c. Despatches in charge of 
Robert Mure, esq. 

"ROBERT BUNCH." 

"On her Britannic jVlajesty's service. The right honorable the 
Lord John Russell, M. P., her Britannic Majesty's principal seci^etarj^ 
of state for foreign affairs, foreign office, London. 

"R. BUNCH." 

Agreeably to instructions communicated by my government to me, 
to see that this bag is delivered accordingly to its address in exactly 
the condition in which I received it, I have the honor to ti-ansmit the 
same by the hands of my assistant secretary, Mr. Benjamin Moran, 
who is directed to deliver it into j'our own hands, if present, or, if 
absent, into those of one of the under secretaries of state for foreign 
affairs. 



90 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

It now becomes my duty to explain the circumstances under which 
this bag lias found its way f roui the possession of the person to Avhom 
it was originally intrusted into that of the authorities of the United 
States. 

It appears that the Secretary of State of the United States, on the 
loth of August last, received information deemed worthy of confidence 
that Mr. Robert Mure, the bearer of this bag, was at the same time 
acting as a bearer of despatches from the insurrectionary autliorities 
of Richmond to your lordship. Other information came that he was 
a bearer of despatches from the same authorities to their agents in 
London. And still other information from various sources agreed in 
affirming that he was travelling under a passport issued by her 
Majesty's consul at Charleston. Upon this information instructions 
w^ere sent forthwith to the police of New York to detain Mr. 3Iure 
and any papers which might be found in his possession. He was 
accordingly detained, and is now in custody at Fort Lafayette await- 
ing full disclosures. A large number of papers were found upon him, 
an examination of which was found full}^ to sustain some portions of 
the information wliich had been furnished, and to prove that Mr. Mure 
was acting as the bearer of a treasonable correspondence l)etween per- 
sons acting in open arms against the government of the United States 
and their friends and emissaries in Great Britain. He had also with 
him several copies of a printed pamphlet purporting to be a narrative 
of the events of the 21st of July at Manasses Junction, addressed to 
persons in England, and evidently intended to further the purposes 
of the conspirators in South Carolina. 

Robert Mure, the bearer of these papers, is reported to be a natu- 
ralized citizen of the United States, where he has resided for thirty 
years, and as actually holding a commission of colonel in the insur- 
gent forces of South Carolina. 

It turned out to be true that in the hands of this gentleman Avere 
found in an open envelope a paper purporting to be a passport, a copy 
of which I have the honor to append to this note as paper marked A; 
and a letter of instructions signed by Robert Bunch, her Majesty's 
consul for the Ignited States, residing at Charleston, a copy of which 
is likewise api:)ended as paper marked B. 

In the absence of all other evidence against Mr. Buncli to j)rove his 
departure from the line of his legitimate duty, it is quite enough to 
call the attention of j'our lordship to the fact that in issuing such a 
paper as this passport he has acted in direct contravention of a regu- 
lation issued b}' the proper department of the United States, of which 
he had received notice, wliich forbids all recognition of any diplo- 
matic or consular passport so far as to permit the bearer to pass 
through the lines of the national forces or out of the country unless 
it should be countersigned by the Secretary of State and the com- 
manding general of the armj' of the United States. Mr. Mure 
attempted to do both with a paper bearing no such signatures. 

There is, however, other and still more serious cause of complaint 
against Mr. Bunch, as disclosed by the papers of Mr. Mure, the expo- 
sition of which I am compelled to reserve for a separate communica- 
tion. The present purpose is confined to an explanation of the reasons 
which have actuated the government of the United States in taking 
the extraordinary step which has had for one of its consequences the 
effect of diverting, be it but for a moment, a jjart of the official cor- 
respondence of her Majesty's government from the channel in which 
it was originally placed. I am directed to express the regret the gov- 
ernment feels that such a measure had become imperative, and to 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 91 

assure your lordsliip of its earnest desire to make auy suitable amends 
Tvhieli may justly be required. If in the process there may have hap- 
pened a slight interruption of the correspondence of the British con- 
sul, it is their desire that the pressing nature of the emergency may 
induce your lordship to excuse it. 

It is needless to say that the bag passes into the hands of your lord- 
ship in preciselj^ the same condition it came from those of Mr. Mure. 
Comit}" towards the government of a friendly nation, together with a 
full confidence in its justice and honor, to say nothing of a sense of 
propriety, would deter the government which I have the honor to 
represent from entertaining the idea of breaking the seals which \)yo- 
tect it, even were there ten times more reason than there is to presume 
an intention, under so sacred a sanction, to perpetrate a wrong certainly 
on one and perhaps on both governments. Still less is it the intention 
of the American government to intimate the smallest suspicion of any 
privity whatever on the part of the authorities in Great Britain in 
aiding, assisting, or coiTutenancing a supposed design injurious to the 
United States and subversive of their sovereignty. Much ground as 
there is for presuming that it never was the intention of those who- 
l^repared the package to forward it to its nominal address, but that 
it was rather the design, after bringing bad matter under this sacred 
sanction safelj^ through the dangers of hostile scrutiny, to open the 
bag themselves and to disseminate the contents far and wide among 
the evil-disposed emissaries to be found scattered all over Europe; 
this consideration has never weighed a single moment to change their 
views of this trust when put in the balance with the strong reliance 
placed upon the good faith of her Majesty's constitutional advisers. 
Least of all has it been in the thought of anyone that your lordship 
would consent in any waj^ to receive the papers if they are really 
illegal in their character or dangerous or injurious to the United 
States. 

Should it, however, prove on inspection that any abuse has been 
attempted in America of the confidence to which her Majesty's gov- 
ernment is in every way entitled, I am directed to exj)ress to your 
lordship the hope that any papers of a treasonable character against 
the United States may be delivered up to me for the use of my govern- 
ment, and that her Majesty's consul at Charleston, if shown to be 
privy to the transmission of them under such a form, may be made 
promptly to feel the severe displeasure of the goveiniment whose good 
faith he has sought to dishonor. For there can be no difference of 
opinion as to the nature of an offence which involves the perversion 
by the agent of one government of the hospitality afforded to him by 
another to conspire against its safet}', dignity, and honor. 

I pray your lordship to accept the assurances of the highest consid- 
eration with which I have the honor to be your lordship's most 
obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

The Right Honorable Earl Russell, &c. , <£ c. , &c. 



Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. 

Legation of the United States, 

London, Sepieniber S, 1861. 
The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary 
of the LTnited States, deeply regrets the painful necessity that com- 



92 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

pels him to make a representation to the riglit honorable Lord Russell, 
her Majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, tonching- 
the condnct of Mr. Robert Unnch, her Majesty's consul for the port 
of Charleston, in the United States. It appears from the contents of 
one of the many letters found in the possession of Mr. Robert Mure, 
bearer of despatches from Mr. Bunch to the government of Great 
Britain, but detained as an agent of the enemies of the United States, 
that the following statement is made of the action of Mr. Bunch in 
Charleston. 

"Mr. B., on oath of secrecy, communicated to me also that the first 
step to recognition was taken. He and Mr. Belligny together sent 
Mr. Trescot to Richmond yesterday to ask Jeff. Davis, President 
to the treaty of to the neuti-al flag covering neu- 
tral goods to be respected. This is the first step of direct ti-eating 
with our government. So prepare for active business by 1st Januar3^ " 

The undersigned is instructed to submit this information to her 
Majesty's government with the request that, if it be found to be cor- 
rect, Mr. Bunch may be at once removed from his office. The under- 
signed is further instructed to add that the President will cheerfullj^ 
accord an exequatur to any person who may be appointed to succeed 
him, who will faithfully perform his functions without injur}' to the 
rights and the interests of the United States. 

The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to renew to Lord 
Russell the assurances of his highest consideration. 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

The Right Honorable Earl Russell, &c., &c., &c. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

No. 84.] Department of State, 

Wasliington, September 10, 1861. 
Sir: I send you an extract of a letter just received from Mr. Francis 
Bernard, in the island of Trinidad. It shows a clear case of conniv- 
ance by the authorities of that island with the insurgents of the LTnited 
States, in violation of the rights and dignity of this government, if 
the facts are truly presented. You will bring the subject to the notice 
of Lord Russell, and will, if the case shall not be satisfactoril}' ex- 
plained, ask for such i)roceedings in the premises as shall make the 
authorities of the island sensible of the displeasure of the imperial 
government and prevent such occurrences in the future. 

For your satisfaction, I state that a new consul has been appointed 
at Trinidad, and that he is now on his way to that island. 
I am, sir, vour obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c. 



Mr. Bernard to Mr. Seivard. 

[Extract.] 

Trinidad, August 7, 1861. 
Sir: I beg to inform you that on the 30th ultimo a steam sloop-of- 
war (Semmes commander) carrying a secession flag, five guns, some 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 93 

of a large calibre, and a crew of from 120 to 150 men, sailed boldly in 
our harbor and reported herself to the authorities of this island as 
being on a cruise. She was last from Puerto Cabello; and since she 
succeeded in getting out of the Mississii)pi river she has already 
captured no less than eleven American vessels. I have ascertained 
the names of some of them, viz, the Joseph Maxwell, Abe Bradford, 
Minnie Miller, West Wind, of Westerly, with a cargo of sugar from 
Havana, and Golden Rocket, which was burnt bv her off the coast of 
Cuba. 

The Sumter landed eight of her prisoners here in a destitute con- 
dition; but a contril)ution has been raised here for their benefit, suffi- 
cient to supply their immediate w^ants, and I will take care that they 
are provided for till an opportunity oft'ei'S ^o ship them to the States. 

The Sumter remained here till the 5th instant, and was allowed to 
supply herself with coals and other necessary outfits. The British 
flag was hoisted on the government flag-staff for her arrival, and the 
officers of the British war vessel "Cadmus" appeared to be on ami- 
cable terms with tliose of the Sumter. The merchant who supplied 
the Sumter with coals did it with the consent and approval of our 
attorney general. 

Being a loyal American, I consider it my duty to send you these 
informations, as there has been no consul of our nation in this island 
for- many months. 

:): H< ^ ^ H: 4< 4< 

I am, sir, your most obedient servant, 

FRANCIS BERNARD. 

The Secretary of State of the United States. 



Mr. Seward to 2Ir. Adams. 

No. 85.] Department of State, 

Washington, Septemher 10, 1861. 

Sir: I transmit a copy of an intercepted letter of the 30th of July 
last, from John P. Baldwin, of Richmond, -Virginia, to Henry Adder- 
lej^, at Nassau, New Providence, relative to the shipment of arms and 
powder from that place for the use of the insurgents in this countr^^ 
The existing British statute for the prevention of armed expeditions 
against countries at peace with Great Britain is understood to be 
similar to our act of Congress of the 5th of April, 1818. Proceedings 
like that referred to in the letter of Baldwin, however, afford us special 
reason to expect legislation on the part of the British government of 
the character of our act of 1838, referred to in m}" instruction to you 
of the 7th instant, numbered 83. It may be, however, that the British 
executive government now has tlie power to prevent tlie exportation 
of contraband of war from British colonies near the United States for 
the use of the insurgents in the south. Should this be the fact, you 
will bring the subject to the attention of Lord Russell, and request 
that proper instructions in regard to it may be given to the colonial 
authorities. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEW^ARD. 

Charles F. Adams, Esq. 



94 NEUTRALITY ' OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

Mr. Baldwin to Mr. Adderley. 

Richmond, Virginia, July SO, 1861. 
My Dear Adderley: The secretary of the navy of the Confederate 
States of America has ordered from England, to be shipped to Nas- 
sau, a quantity of arms and powder. I have recommended them to be 
consigned to you, and I have to ask of you, as a favor to me, to take 
good care of them. I will be with you soon, and will expect your aid 
in transhipping the same. 

Hoping soon to see 3'ou, I remain your friend, 

JNO. P. BALDWIN. 
Henry Adderley, Esq., 

Nassau, N. P., Bahamas. 



Mr. Seward, to Mr. Adams. 

No. 86.] Department of State, 

Wasliington, Septemher 11^ 1861. 
Sir: Your despatch of August 23d has been receiY^ed. 
The inefficiency of the British laws to prevent violations of our 
rights is deeply to be regretted. We shall necessarily be obliged to 
exercise vigilance in detecting the unlawful character and objects of 
British vessels approaching our coasts, which will not be pleasant to 
the government whose flag they will Jje perverting to such unfriendly 
uses. 

I am, sir, respectfullj', j^our obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c. 



3Ir. Adams to Mr. Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No. 44.] Legation of the LTnited States, 

London, September IJf, 1861. 
Sir: I now have the honor to transmit copies of two notes received 
5''esterday from Lord Russell, in answer to my notes of the 3d of Sep- 
tember, transmitting to him the bag of Mr. Bunch. It appears from 
one of them that Mr. Bunch has been acting under secret instructions, 
which are only now acknowledged because they have come to light, 
and that his granting a safe conduct to an emissary of secession charged 
with treasonable papers is no objection to his neutral character in the 
eyes of his employers. With regard to the question presented in the 
other note, it is satisfactory to me, at least in so far as it devolves all 
responsibility for the further treatment of the question. into more capa- 
ble hands. I transmit also a copy of \ny reply. 

******* 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 95 

Foreign Office, September 9, 1861. 

Sir: I received, Avilh some surprise, from Lord Lyons an intimation 
that a sealed bag, directed by one of her Majesty's consuls to her 
Majesty's secretary of state, had been seized and detained by order of 
the Secretary of State of the L'nited Slates. 

It seems to have been suspected that her Majesty's consul had 
inserted in his official bag, and covered with his official seal, the cor- 
respondence of the enemies of the government of the United States 
now engaged in open hostilities against them. 

Had her Majesty's consul so acted he would have, no doubt, been 
guilty of a grave breach of his duty both towards his own government 
and that of the United States; but I am happy to say there does not 
appear, on opening the bag at the foreign office, to be any ground for 
such a suspicion. 

Her Majesty's government were advised that the suspension of the 
conveyance b}' post of letters from British subjects betAveen the 
northern and the southern States was a contravention of the treaty 
on this suljject contracted by the two governments. Her Majest3''s 
government have been unwilling to i^ress this view on the L^nited 
States; but this stoppage of the post has occasioned great inconven- 
ience to individuals, and I enclose a copy of a note from Mr. Bunch 
to the under secretary of foreign affairs, showing the mode in which 
he has endeavored to palliate the evil by enclosing private letters in 
his consular bag. 

I shall address any further communication I may have to make on 
this subject to Lord Lj-ons. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, youi 
most obedient, humble servant, 

RUSSELL. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., <fr., d-c, &c. 



Charleston, August 5, 1861. 

Mr. Bunch j)resents his compliments to her Majesty's under secre- 
tary of state for foreign affairs, and takes leave to enclose to him here- 
with certain letters which are intended for the post. 

They are principally letters of servants, governesses, etc. (British 
subjects), which, owing to the discontinuance of the post, they are 
unable to send in any other way. Some also contain dividends, the 
property of British subjects, which they could scarcely receive with- 
out Mr. Bunch's intervention. 

Mr. Bunch hopes that there is no irregularity in this proceeding. 
No expense of postage is incurred by the foreign office, as the bag in 
which the letters are contained goes h\ a private hand to Liverpool. 

Her Majesty's Under Secretary op State 

For Foreign Affairs. 



Foreign Office, September 9, 1861. 
The undersigned, her Majesty's principal secretary of state for for- 
eign affairs, has received a communication from Mr. Adams, envoy 
extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States at 



96 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

this court, dated the 3d instant, giving- some information regarding 
the conduct of Mr. Bunch, her Majesty's consul at Charleston, in the 
United States, and requesting, on the part of the government of the 
United States, that Mr. Bunch maj' at once be removed from his offtce. 

The undersigned will, without hesitation, state to Mr. Adams that 
in pursuance of an agreement between the British and French gov- 
ernments, Mr. Bunch was instructed to communicate to the jDcrsons 
exercising authority in the so-called Confederate States the desire of 
those governments that the second, third, and fourth articles of the 
declaration of Paris should be observed by those States in the prosecu- 
tion of the hostilities in which thej^ were engaged. Mr. Adams will 
observe that the commerce of Great Britain and France is deeply 
interested in tlie maintenance of the articles providing that the flag 
covers the goods, and that the goods of a neutral taken on board a 
belligerent ship are not liable to condemnation. 

Mr. Bunch, therefoi-e, in what he has done in this matter has acted 
in obedience to the instructions of his government, who accept the 
responsibilit}^ of his proceedings so far as they are known to the for- 
eign departments and who can not remove him from his office for hav- 
ing obeyed his instructions. 

But when it is stated in a letter from some person not named that 
the first step to the recognition of the southern States by Great Britain 
has been taken the undersigned has to decline all resj)onsibility for 
such statement. 

Her ^lajesty's government have already recognized the belligerent 
character of the southern States, and they will continue to consider 
them as belligerents But Her Majesty's government have not recog- 
nized and are not prepared to recognize the so-called Confederate 
States as a separate and independent State. 

The undersigned requests Mr. Adams to accept the assurance of his 
highest consideration. 



RUSSELL. 



Charles Francis Adams, Esq., c&c, &c., &c. 



Legation op the LTnited States, 

London^ September 13, 1861. 

The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister i^lenipotentiaiy 
of the United States, has the honoi" to acknowledge the reception this 
day of two notes from the right honorable Earl Russell, her Majesty's 
principal secretary of state for foreign affairs, both dated the 9th of 
September, and both in reply to notes addressed to his lordship by 
the undersigned on the 3d instant, touching the case of Mr. J3uncli, 
her Majesty's consul at Charleston, and the mode of transmission of 
his despatches. The undersigned has the honor to inform his lord- 
shij) that copies of these notes will be transmitted by the next steamer 
for the consideration of the government of the United States. 

The undersigned requests Earl Russell to accept the assurance of 
his highest consideration. 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Right Honorable Earl Russell, &c., &c., &c. 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 97 

Mr. Seward to Mr-. Adams. 

No. 88.] Department of State, 

IVa.sJiingfon, September I4, 1861. 

Sir: Your despatch of August 30 (No. 34) has just been received. 
Your note to Lord Jolin Russell, which accompanies it, is approved. 
My despatch to you (No. 83), under the date of the 7th instant, will 
have reached you before this communication can arrive. You will 
have learned from that paper that your course, as now made known 
to me, was anticipated by the President, and that he had already 
directed that the negotiation for our adhesion to the declaration of 
the congress of Paris sliould be suspended. 

It is due to the British government to say that the letter of Lord 
John Russell to Mr. Edwards, upon Dominican affairs, to which you 
refer, and a copy of which you enclose, was read to me by Lord Lyons, 
pursuant to instructions from Lord Russell. 

I am, sir, respectfully, j^our obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adeems. 

No. 89.] Department of State, 

JVasltingtoji, September IJf, 1861. 
Sir: Your despatch of August 30 (No. 35) has been received. 
While I regret with you that the administration of the laws of Great 
Britain is such as to render comparatively ineffectual your efforts to 
defeat there the designs of parties in that country injurious to the 
United States, I have great pleasure in sajang that the information 
we receive from you concerning them is often very valuable, and 
enables us to put our own authorities here in a way of vigilant sur- 
veillance which promises good results. 

I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &e., &c., &c. 



Mr. Seivard to Mr. Adams. 

[Confidential.] 

No. 95.] Department op State, 

JVashiiigton, Septeriiher 25, 1861. 

Sir: Your despatch of September 7 (No. 39) has just been received. 
Your review of the correspondence between us and the British govern- 
ment since you entered upon your mission is quite satisfactory, and 
we have everj^ reason to be content with the details as with the results. 

The time which has elapsed since the insurgents made their first 
unnatural appeal to the sympathies and aid of foreign powers for the 
overthrow of our government has been sufficient to draw out all their 
strength and exhaust in some measure their passion. On the other 
hand, the strength of the Union manifests itself with constant aug- 

S. Doc. 18 7 



98 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

mentation. Every day brings two thousand men and some new sliip- 
of-war into activity, and the insurrection already is finding itself 
obliged to provide for a long and merely defensive contest, desolating 
the States which should coiistitute the new confederacy^, while the loyal 
States remain prosperous and happj'. 

I think that Great Britain will soon be able to see, what she has 
hitherto been unwilling to see, that if she, like ourselves, seeks peace 
and prosperity on this coiitinei:t, she can most effectually contribute 
to their restoration by manifesting her wishes for the success of this 
government in suppressing the insurrection as speedily" as possible. 
I am, sir, respectfully, j^our obedient servait, 

WILLIAM II. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., d-c, &c., d-c. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

No. 97.] Department of State, 

Washington^ September 25, 1861. 
Sir: Your despatch of September 6, No. ;^8, has been received. 
Our naval force is rapidly increasing, and the command of it has 
recently been i-eorganized. We are preparing for some vigorous dem- 
onstrations on the coast, to begin in about ten days; and I trust, 
therefore, that we shall be able to defeat on this side the enterprises 
of the insurgents which we have been unable to prevent on the other. 
I am, sir, respectfully, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM IL SEWARD. 
Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &(-., &c., &c. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No. 50.] Legation of the LTnited States, 

London, September 28, 1861. 

During my stay at Abergeldie I alluded to instructions received at 
the moment of my leaving London in your despatch. No. 84, of the 
lOth of September, directing me to make a conq^laint of the authori- 
ties at Trinidad for their mode of reception of the instirgent j^rivateer, 
the Sumter. I read to him the copj^ of the letter of Mr. IJernard, 
which was enclosed. But I contented mj'self with only mentioning 
the subject, as I said I supposed I should be obliged to present the 
case hereafter in a more formal Avay in writing. 

His lordship expressed a wish that I should take that course. The 
matter had already come before the colonial office, and it had been 
referre<I to the law officers of the crown to report Avhat was the action 
proper to be taken in similar cases. 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 99 

Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 

No. 52.] Legation of the United States, 

London, September 28, 1861. 
Sir: I am much gratified to perceive by the terms of j^onr despatch 
No. 83, dated the 7th of this month, a substantial ratification of the 
position taken by me in regard ti» Lord Russell's note of the 19th of 
August, and to the declaration which he proposed to append to the 
convention concerning neutral rights. I find in it, too, a general 
coincidence in the argument presented by me in vny rej)ly to his lord- 
ship on the 23d of August, a copy of which could not have reached 
the department down to the hitest dates yet received. There are 
some views offered, however, in my note which are not touched upon 
in that despatch. I am therefore not as j'et fully certain whether, as 
a whole, it has met with the approbation of the President. For this 
reason I decided not to hold communication on the subject with Lord 
Russell during tlie time of my late staj^ under his roof, but rather to 
wait until after the arrival of the next despatches from the depart- 
ment, which will probably bring a final review ot the negotiation as 
it appears after an examination of all the papers that belong to it. 
I shall then be in a position to judge of the propriet}^ of any further 
action which it may be advisable to pursue. Ilis loidship informed 
me, on my taking leave of him, that he expected to return to London 
by the 14th of next month, after which I anticipate no delay like the 
late one in the transaction of important business. 

I have the honor to be, sir, yowY obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington. 



3Ir. Adams to Mr. Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No. 53.] Legation op the United States, 

London, Octoher Jf., 1861. 

Sir: I have to acknowledge the reception of despatches from the 
department, numbered from 85 to 80, both inclusive. 

The despatch (No. 85) dated the 10th of September, like its imme- 
diate predecessor (No. 84) of the same date, though received here a 
week earlier, relates to cases of violation of neutrality in the British 
islands in the West Indies. I have now the honor to forward copie" 
of two notes addressed by me to Lord Russell, one of the 30th of Sep 
tember, and the other of the following day, touching these question 
******* 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS 

Hon. William H. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. 



100 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

Mr. Adams to Earl Bussell. 

Legation of the United States, 

London, September 30, 1861. 

The undersigned, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary 
of the United States, regrets to be obliged to inform the right honor- 
able Earl Russell, her Majesty's principal secretar}^ of state for for- 
eign affairs, that he has been instructed by the President of the United 
States to prefer a complaint against the authorities of the island of 
Trinidad for a violation of her Majesty's proclamatiou of neutrality 
by giving aid and encouragement to the insurgents of the United 
States. It appears by an extract from a letter received at the Depart- 
ment of State from a gentleman believed to be worthy of credit, a 
resident of Trinidad, Mr. Francis Bernard, a copy of which is sub- 
mitted herewith, that a steam vessel, known as an armed insurgent 
privateer, called the Sumter, was received on the 30th of July last at 
that port and was permitted to remain for six days, during which 
time she was not only furnished with all necessary supplies for the 
continuance of her cruise, under the sanction of the attorney general, 
but that her Majesty's flag was actually hoisted on the government 
flag-staff in acknowledgment of her arrival. 

The undersigned has been directed by his government to bring this 
extraordinary proceeding to the attention of Lord Russell, and, in case 
it shall not be satisfactorily explained, to ask for the adoption of such 
measures as shall insure, on the part of the authorities of the island, 
the i)revention of all occurrences of the kind during the continuance 
of the difficulties in America. 

The undersigned deems it proper to add, in explanation of the 
absence of any official representation from Trinidad to substantiate 
the present complaint, that there was no consul of the United States 
there at the time of the arrival of the vessel. The undersigned had 
the honor, a few days since, to apprise Lord Russell of the fact that 
this deficiency had been since supplied, by preferring an application 
for her Majesty's exequator for a new consul, who is already on his 
way to occupy his post. 

The undersigned begs to renew to Earl Russell the assurances of his 
highest consideration. 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

The Right Hon. Earl Russell, &c., &c., &c. 



Mr. Adams to Earl Russell. 

Legation of the United States, 

London, October 1, 1861. 
My Lord: IL is with much regret that I find myself receiving, at 
every fresh arrival from the United States, instructions from my gov- 
ernment to make representations to your lordship concerning alleged 
violations of her Majesty's proclamation of neutrality, committed by 
British subjects through the channel of the colonies situated near the 
United States. I have the honor now to submit to your lordship's 
consideration the copy of an intercepted letter from a person named 
John P. Baldwin, living at Richmond, in Virginia, in the service of 
the insurgents, addressed to Henry Adderley, esquire, of Nassau, New 
Providence. It appears by this letter that Nassau has been made, to 



y' 



NEUTKALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 101 

some extent, an entrepot for the transmission of articles contraband 
of war from Great Britain to the ports held by the insurgents, it 
would be a great source of satisfaction to the government of the 
United States to learn that her Majesty's government felt itself clothed 
with tlie necessary power to prevent the exportation of such contra- 
band from the colonies for the use of the insurgents, and that it would 
furuish the necessary instructions to the local authorities to attain 
that end. 

I pray your lordshij) to accept the assurances of the highest con- 
sideration, with which I have tlie honor to be your lordship's most 
obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 

The Right lion. Earl Russell, &c., &c., &c. 



Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. 

No. 58.] Legation of the United States, 

London, Ocfoher 11, 1861. 

Sir: I have the honor to enclose a copy of Lord Russell's note to me 
of the 4th instant, in reply to my representation of the conduct of the 
authorities of the island of Trinidad, made under instructions from 
the department. 

It will appear from this that the governor of Trinidad, by hoisting 
the British flag on the government flagstaff, probably desired to sig- 
nify to the officers of the Sumter, on their arrival, the neutral char- 
acter of the island, but that he iu the meantime forgot that the act is 
susceptible of a very different construction in the popular mind. 
****** 

I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. 
Hon. William II. Seward, 

Secretary of State, Wasliingtou, D. C. 



Earl Russell to Mr. Adams. 

Foreign Office, October J/., 1861. 

The undersigned, her Majesty's principal secretary of state for for- 
eign affairs, has had tlie honor to receive a complaint from Mr. Adams, 
envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States 
at this court, against the authorities of the island of Trinidad for a 
violation of her Majesty's proclamation of neutrality by giving aid 
and encouragement to the insurgents of the United States. 

It appears, from the accounts received at the colonial office and at 
the admiralty, that a vessel bearing a secession flag entered the port 
of Trinidad on the 30th of July last. 

Captain Hillj^ar, of her Majesty's ship "Cadmus," having sent a 
boat to ascertain her nationality, the commanding officer showed a 
commission signed by Mr. Jefferson Davis, calling himself the Presi- 
dent of the so-styled Confederate States. 

The "Sumter," which was the vessel in question, was allowed to 
stay six days at Trinidad and to supply herself with coals and provi- 



102 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

sions, and the attorney general of the island perceived no illegality 
in these proceedings. 

The law ol^cers of the crown have rei)orted that the condnct of the 
governor was in conformity to her Majesty's proclamation. 

No mention is made by the governor of his hoisting the British flag 
on the government flag-staff; and if he did so, it was probably in order 
to show the national character of the island and not in acknowledge- 
ment of the arrival of the "Sumter." 

There does not a]3pear, therefore, any reason to believe tliat her 
Majesty's proclamation of neutrality has been violated by the governor 
of Trinidad, or by the commanding ofiicer of her Majesty's ship 
"Cadmus." 

The undersigned requests Mr. Adams to accept the assurance of his 
highest consideration. 



Charles Francis Adams, Esq., d:c., &c., &c. 



RUSSELL. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

No. 108.] Department of State, 

Washington, October 22, 1861. 

Sir: The receipt of your despatch of the 14th of September (No. 44) 
has been already acknowledged. 

It was accompanied by Earl Russell's reply to the note which, in 
execution of my instructions, you addressed to him on the subject of 
the detention of a bearer of despatches sent 1)}^ Robert Bunch, her 
Majesty's consul at Charleston, and the substitution b}' me of another 
person to convey his consular bag to Great Britain. 

Earl Russell says in his note that if it had been true (as we appre- 
hended) that Mr. Bunch had inserted into his official bag and covered 
with his official seal the correspondence of the enemies of this govern- 
ment in the United States, he would have been guilty of a grave 
breach of his dut}^ towards his own government and that of the United 
States. Earl Russell says also tliat on the opening of the bag at the 
foreign oflice (in London) no ground for that suspicion was revealed. 

These declarations, made with unquestioned candor and freedom, 
are entirely satisfactory upon the main jioint involved in j^our note. 
It is therefore a r)leasaut duty for me to instruct you to reply to Earl 
Russell that this government regrets the interruptiori of the passage 
of the consular despatches, which lias occurred in consequence of a 
mistaken suspicion that the agent who transmitted them was abusing 
the confidence of the two governments. I sincerelj^ hoi:»e that no 
serious inconvenience resulted from the delay. 

-Earl Russell, after making the explanations wliicli I have quoted, 
proceeds to remark that her Majesty's government was advised that 
the suspicion of the conversance by post of letters from British sub- 
jects between the northern States and the southern States was in con- 
travention of the treaty on this subject contracted between the two 
governments; that her Majesty's government had been, nevertheless, 
unwilling to press this view on the United States; but that this stop- 
page of the post has occasioned great inconvenience to individuals. 
His lordship then submits a copy of a note Avhich Mr. Bunch had writ- 
ten to the under secretary of state, showing the mode in which he had 
endeavored to palliate the evil by enclosing private letters in his 



NEUTRALTTY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CITIL WAR. 103 

official bag. His lordship then dismisses the subject, saying that he 
shall address any further communication he may hav^e to make 
thereon to Lord Lj-ons. 

Mr. Bunch, in his note, states that he encloses in the bag, to the 
under secretar3''s address, certain letters which are intended for the 
post, and that they are principally letters of servants, governesses, 
&c., British subjects, Avhicli, owing to the discontinuance of the post, 
they are unable to send in any other way; also, that some of the let- 
ters contain dividends, the property of IJritish subjects, which they 
could scarcely receive without Mr. Bunch's intervention. lie adds 
that he hopes that there is no irregularity in this proceeding, since no 
expense of postage is incurred, because the bag in wliich the letters 
are contained goes bj^ a private hand to Liverpool. 1 read this note 
under the light thrown upon it by the explanations of Earl Russell, 
M^hich show that the whole corresj)ondence contained in the bag was 
innocent. 

In these circumstances, what remains open to special exception in 
Ml'. Bunch's proceedings is his substitution of his consular bag and 
official seal for the mail bag and mail locks of the United States, and 
of his own mail carrier for the mail carriers of the LTnited States. 

The proceeding of the consul in these respects certainly is not 
defensible on any ground of treaty or international law, nor does 
Earl Russell in any way imply that he deems it is so. The proceed- 
ing, however, was practically harmless, and it is not likely to be 
repeated. 

I confess to the fact of the interruption of the post, and also that it 
works literally a nonfulfillment of a treaty stipulation. I deplore it 
for that reason, as well as for the public and private injuries that 
it occasions, not only abroad but at home. But the British govern- 
ment is well aware that the interruption has occurred, not through 
the deliberate or even voluntary consent of the government, but 
through the sudden violence of an insurrection which lias not only 
obstructed the mails, but which even seeks to overthrow not only the 
treaty in question but even the government of the LTnited States and 
the Union itself, which constitutes them one treaty-making and 
treaty-observing nation. Suppression of the correspondence between 
parties in that nation with each other in this country and in foreign 
countries is a measure which is essential to the suppression of the 
insurrection itself, and to a complete restoration of the functions of 
the government throughout the LTnion. I feel sure that the magna- 
nimity of the British government may l)e relied upon not to com- 
plain, at one and the same time, of the breach of our international 
postal treaty under such circumstances, and of our resort to a measure 
which is indispensable to complete our ability to fulfil it. 
I am, sir, vour obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., &c., &c., &c. 



Jlr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

No. 109.] Department of State, 

Washington, October 33, 1861. 
Sir: I recur once more to your despatch of September ll. No. 44. 
On the 3d of that month you addressed a note to Earl Russell, in 



104 NEUTRALITY OF GEEAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

which you informed him, by my direction, tliat from the contents of tlie 
many letters found in the possession of Mr. Robert Mure, bearer of 
despatches to the ,£fovernment of Great Britain, but detained at New 
York as an agent of the enemies of the United States, tlie following 
statement is made of the action of Mr. Bunch in Charleston: "Mr. 
Bunch, on oath of secrecy, communicated to me also that the first 
step to recognition was taken; that he and Mr. Belligny together sent 
Mr. Trescot to Richmond yesterday to ask Jeff. Davis, President, to 

the treaty of to the neutral flag covering neutral 

goods to be respected. This is the first step of direct treating with our 
government. So prepare for active business b}" first of January." 

You submitted this information to her Majesty's government with 
a request on the part of the President of the United States that, if it 
should be found to be correct, Mr. Bunch might be at once removed 
from his office. And 3"ou further added, bj^ m}- direction, that the 
President would cheerfullj'^ accord an exequator to any pei-son who 
might be appointed to succeed Mr. launch, who would faithfully per- 
form his functions without injury to the rights and interests of the 
United States. 

There is appended to your despatch now befoi-e me the written 
answer of Earl Russell to j^our note thus recited. 

His lordship answers that he will without hesitation state to Mr. 
Adams that, in pursuance of an agreement between the British and 
French governments, Mr. Bunch was instructed to communicate to 
the j)ersons exercising authority' in the so-called Confederate States 
the desire of those governments that the second, third, and fourth 
articles of the declaration of Paris should be observed b}^ those States 
in the prosecution of the hostilities in which they were engaged. His 
lordship then asked you to observe that the commerce of Great Britain 
and France is deeply interested in the maintenance of the articles 
providing that the flag covers the goods, and that the goods of a neu- 
tral taken on board a belligerent ship are not liable to confiscation. 
Earl Russell thereupon j^roceeds to say that Mr. Bunch, in what he 
has done in this matter, has acted in obedience to the instructions of 
his government, who accept the responsibility of his proceedings so 
far as they are known to the foreign department, and who cannot 
therefore remove him from his office for having obeyed their instruc- 
tions. But his lordship adds that when it is stated in a letter from 
some person not named that the first step to the recognition of the 
southern States by Great Britain has been taken, he, Earl Russell, 
begs to decline all responsibility for such statement, and he remarks 
on this branch of the subject that her Majesty's government have 
alread}^ recognized the belligerent character of the southern States, 
and they will continue to consider them as belligerents, but that her 
Majesty's government have not recognized, and are not prepared to 
recognize, the so-called Confederate States as a separate and inde- 
pendent State. 

You are instructed to reply to this note of her Majestj^'s principal 
secretar}' of state for foreign affairs: 

First. That her Majesty's government having avowed tliat Mr. 
Bunch acted under their instructions, so far as his conduct is known 
to the foreign department, and that government having avowed their 
responsibility for his proceedings in that extent, it is admitted that, 
so far as that portion of the subject is concerned, the matter is to be 
settled directly with her Majesty's government. 

Secondl3^ That a law of the United States forbids anj^ person not 



NEUTKALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 105 

specially appointed or duly authorized or recognized bjtlie President, 
whether citizen or denizen, privileged or unprivileged, from counsel- 
ling, advising, aiding, or assisting in any political correspondence with 
the government of any foreign state whatever, with an intent to influ- 
ence the measures of any foreign government, or of anj^ officer or agent 
thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United 
States, or to defeat the measnres of the government. The proceeding 
of j\Ir. Bunch was clearly and distinctly in violation of this iDositive 
law. 

Thirdly. This government finds no sufficient justification or excuse 
for the proceeding of Mr. Bunch, thus shown to be in violation of the 
law of the United States, in the consideration that Great Britain was 
deeply interested in the maintenance of the articles which provide 
that the flag covers the goods, and that the goods of a neutral taken 
on board a belligerent ship are not liable to confiscation. 

It is enough to say on this subject that in our view the proper agents 
of the British government to make known that interest here are the 
diplomatic not the consular agents of her Majesty, and that the onlj^ 
authority in this country to which anj' diplomatic communication 
whatever can be made is the government of the United States itself. 

Still less can the United States admit that communication by Mr. 
Bunch, while exercising consular privileges with which he was clothed 
by the consent of the United States, with insurgents in arms against 
the federal government is justified by the declaration of the British 
ministry that they have already recognized the belligerent character 
of the insurgents, and that they will continue to consider them as bel- 
ligerents. It is understood to be true that her Majesty's government 
have heretofore issued a ro} al proclamation which they interpret as 
declaring that they recognize the insurgents as a belligerent. But it 
is also true that this government has, with equal decision and with 
equal resolution, announced to the British government that anj^ such 
declaration made by the British government would not be accepted as 
modifying, in the least degree, the rights or powers of this govern- 
ment, or the obligations due to them by Great Britain as a friendly 
nation. Still adhering to this position, the govei'nment of the United 
States will continue to pursue, as it has heretofore done, the counsels 
of prudence, and Avill not sulTer itself to be disturbed by excitement. 
It must revoke the exequatur of the consul, who has not only been 
the bearer of communications between the insurgents and a foreign 
government, in violation of our laws, but has abused equally the con- 
fidence of the two governments, by reporting, witliout the authority of 
his government, and in violation of their own policy as Avell as of our 
national rights, that the proceeding in which he was engaged was in 
the nature of a treaty with the insurgents, and the first step towards 
a recognition by Great Britain of their sovereignty. Moreover, the 
conduct of the person in question, even while this correspondence has 
been going on, as well as before it commenced, has been that, n.ot of 
a friend to this government, or even of a neutral, l)ut of a partisan of 
faction and disunion. 

In reviewing this subject it would be unjust to her Majesty's min- 
ister residing here, as well as to her Majesty's government, to omit to 
say that that minister has, in all his proceedings, carefull}^ respected 
the sovereignty and the rights of the United States, and that the 
arrangements which have been made by him, with the approval of 
this government, fen- communication between the British government 
and its consuls, through the national vessels of Great Britain entering 



106 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. ' 

blockaded ports Avithoiit carrying passengers or private letters, seems 
to forbid any necessity for a recurrence of such proceedings as those 
which have brought about these exi)lanations. You will inform the 
Earl Russell that the exequatur of Mr. Bunch has been withdrawn 
because his services as consul are not agreeable to this government, 
and that the consular i:)rivileges thus taken from him will be clieer- 
f ully allowed to any successor whom her Majesty maj^ appoint, against 
whom no grave personal objections shall exist. It is a source of sat- 
isfaction to the President to i-eflect that the j)roceeding which I have 
been considering occurred some time ago, and that the part of it which 
was most calculated to offend, and to which exception is now especi- 
ally taken, finds no support in the communication of Earl Russell. 
I am, sir, vour obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., c&c, d^c, &c. 



Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. 

No. 112.] Department of State, 

Washington, October 29, 1861. 

Sir: Your despatch of October 11, No. 5S, has been received. It is 
accompanied by Lord Russell's reply to the note which you addressed 
to him by my direction, asking an explanation of the conduct of the 
colonial authorities in Trinidad on the occasion of the entrance of the 
piratical vessel the "Sumter" into that port. 

Lord Russell admits that the "Sumter" (an armed American ves- 
sel), bearing an insurgent flag, entered the port of Trinidad and 
when boarded and required to show her nationality her commanding 
officer showed no legal authority from this government, but a pre- 
tended commission from a citizen of the United States, notoi-iously 
engaged in arms against them. Notwithstanding these facts it is not 
denied that the governor of the island hoisted the British flag on the 
government flag-staff, although it is stated by Lord Russell that if he 
did so it was probably done in order to show the national character 
of the island, and not in acknowledgment of the arrival of the 
"Sumter." 

His lordshij:), however, admits that the "Sumter" was allowed to 
remain six days in Trinidad, and that during her stay- she was allowed 
to supply herself with coals and provisions. The armament, the 
insurgent flag, and the spurious commission told the governor, as thej" 
sufficiently prove to her Majesty's government, that the "Sumter" is 
and can be nothing else than a piratical vessel. Iler depredations on 
the commerce of this country form a part of the history of our times. 
The British government has, moreover, been directly informed by us 
that the "Sumter" is a piratical craft, and that the navigators and 
seamen on board of her are pirates, punishable hy the laws of their 
own country with death. Lord Russell informs us that the law 
officers of the crown have nevertheless reported that the conduct of 
the colonial authorities of Trinidad is in conformity to her ^lajestj^'s 
proclamation. Her Majesty's government dismiss our complaint from 
their consideration. 

In view of these facts, it becomes my duty to instruct you to inform 
the British government that the President deeply regrets that Lord 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 107 

Russell is altogether unable to give to onr complaint a satisfactory 
solution. 

When it is considered how important a part commerce plays among 
the interests of our country it will be seen that the United States can- 
not consent that pirates engaged in destroying it shall receive shelter 
and supplies in the ports of friendly nations. It tends to the universal 
derangement of commerce when piracy is anywhere tolerated, and 
therefore its suppression is a common interest of all civilized ( ountries; 
but if any one power fails to preserve this interest and to act for the 
common welfare, then it is easy to see that each state must provide 
for its own security at whatever cost and however it may disturb the 
general harmony of the commercial world. 

This government will consider how its safety maj^ be best secured; 
but it cannot forbear from expressing a hope that her Majesty's min- 
isters, in view of the gravity of the question, may deem the subject 
worthy of a deliberate reconsideration. 

I am, sir, your most obedient servant, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., d'c, &c., &c. 



Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons. 

[Circular.] 

Department of State, 

Wasltingfon, October 4^, 1861. 

My Lord: I regret to inform you that information has reached this 
department that foreign vessels-of-M'ar, whicli have entered ports of 
States in insurrection against the government of the United States, 
under blockade, have, in some instances, carried passengers, and in 
others private correspondence. It is presumed that such proceedings 
could not have taken i)lace with the knowledge or approval of the 
governments of foreign countries. 

With a view, however, to prevent any misunderstanding in future, 
it is distinctly to be understood that no foreign vessel-of-war, which 
may enter or depart from a blockaded port of the United States, will 
carry any person as a passenger, or any correspondence other than 
that between the government of the country to which the vessel may 
belong and the diplomatic and consular agents of such country at the 
ports adverted to. 

I avail myself of this occasion to offer to your lordship a renewed 
assurance of my high consideration. 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

To the Right Honorable Lord Lyons, &c., &c., &c. 



Lord Lyons to Mr. Seivard. 

British Legation, 

Washington, D. C, October 12, 1861. 
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 
4th instant, relative to communications between ships-of-war and the 
ports in the southern States, now under blockade. 



108 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

You liave apprised me in that note that information has reached the 
Department of State that foreign vessels-of-war which have entered 
those ports since they were bk)ckaded have in some instances carried 
passengers and in others private correspondence. Yon were so good 
as to assure me verbally yesterday that no Britisli ship-of-war was 
included among those to which your note thus referred. Indeed, I 
have every reason to believe that, with a single exception, no British 
ship-of-war has communicated with any of the ports under blockade. 
The ship which I except is the " Steady;" of my intention to request 
the commander of this ship to leave otBcial despatches at Charleston 
I had the honor to inform you on the 18tli of last month. The ' ' Steady " 
accordingly sailed for Charleston a fewdaj's afterwards. She carried 
no letters except official despatches from me or other authorities of 
foreign governments in the United States, and no iiassenger excepting 
Mr. Fuilaston, her Majesty's acting consul at Savannah, who was 
landed at Charleston on his way back to his j)ost. 

As several of my colleagues have expressed to me their desire to 
send official despatches to the consuls of their respective governments 
by au}^ of her Majest^^^'s ships which may hereafter conv^ey despatches 
for me to the ports under blockade, I shall be much obliged if you will 
inform me whether you see any objection to my forwarding to those 
ports, by her Majesty's ships, despatches addressed by official authori- 
ties of foreign countries to other official authorities of their own 
countries. 

I have tlie honor to be, witli high consideration, sir, your most obe- 
dient, humble servant, 

LYONS. 



Lord Lyons to Mr. Seivard. 

Washington, October 14., 1861. 

Sir: Her Majesty's government were much concerned to And that 
two British subjects, Mr. Patrick and Mr. Rahming, had been sub- 
jected to arbitrary arrest; and although they had learnt from a tele- 
graphic despatch from me that Mr. Patrick had been released, they 
could not but regard the matter as one requiring their very serious 
consideration. 

Her Majesty's government perceive that when British subjects as 
well as American citizens are arrested they are immediately trans- 
ferred to a military prison, and that the military authorities refuse to 
pay obedience to a writ of habeas corpus. 

Her Majesty's government conceive that this practice is directly 
opposed to the maxim of the Constitution of the United States "that 
no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due 
process of law." 

Her Majesty's government are willing, however, to make every 
allowance for the hard necessities of a time of internal trouble; and 
they would not have been surprised if the ordinary securities of per- 
sonal liberty had been temporarily suspended, nor would they have 
complained if British subjects falling under suspicion had suffered 
from the consequences of that suspension. 

But it does not appear that Congress has sanctioned in this respect 
any departure from the due course of law; and it is in these circum- 
stances that the law officers of the crown have advised her Majesty's 
government that the arbitrary- arrests of British subjects are illegal. 



NEUTEALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 101) 

So far as ai)pears to her Majesty's government, the Secretary of 
State of the United States exercises, upon the reports of spies and 
informers, the power of depriving British subjects of their liberty, of 
retaining them in prison, or liberating them, by his own will and 
pleasure. 

Her Majesty's government cannot but regard this despotic and arbi- 
trary- power as inconsistent witli the Constitution of the United States, 
as at variance with the treaties of amity subsisting between the two 
nations, and as tending to prevent tlie resort of British subjects to 
the United States for the purposes of trade and industry. 

Her Majesty's government have therefore felt bound to instruct me 
to remonstrate against such irregular proceedings, and to say that, in 
their opinion, the authority of Congress is necessary in order to justify 
the arbitrary arrest and imprisonment of British subjects. 

I have the honor, to be, sir, with the highest consideration, your 
most obedient, humble servant, 

LYONS. 

Hon. William H. Seward, &c. 



Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons. 

Department of State, 

Washington, October U, 1861. 

My Lord: I have the honor to acknowledge your lordship's note of 
the present date. 

In that paper you inform me that tlie British government is much 
concerned to find that two British subjects, Mr. Patrick and Mr. 
Rahming, have been brought under arbitrary arrest, and that although 
her Majesty's ministers have been advised by you of the release of 
Mr. Patrick, yet they cannot but regard the matter as requiring the 
very serious consideration of this government. 

You further inform me that her Majesty's government iDcrceive that 
when British subjects, as well as American citizens, are arrested, they 
are transferred to a military prison, and that the military authorities 
refuse to i^ay obedience to a w^rit of habeas corpus. 

You add that her Majesty's government conceive that this practice 
is directly opposed to the maxim of the Constitution of the United 
States that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or pi'-operty 
without due process of law. You then observe that her Majesty's 
government are nevertheless willing to make every allowance for the 
hard necessities of a time of internal trouble, and they would not have 
been surprised if the ordinary securities of personal liberty had been 
temporarily suspended, nor would they have complained if British 
subjects, falling under suspicion, had suffered from the consequences 
of that suspension. But that it does not appear that Congress has 
sanctioned, in this respect, any departure from the due course of law, 
and it is in these circumstances that the law officers of the crown have 
advised her Majesty's government that the arrests of British subjects 
are illegal. 

You remark further, that, so far as appears to her Majesty's gov- 
ernment, the Secretary of State for the United States examines upon 
the reports of spies, and assumes the power of depriving British sub- 
jects of their liberty or liberating them by his own will and pleasure, 
and you inform me that her Majesty's government cannot but regard 



110 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

this despotic and arbitrary power as inconsistent with the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, as at variance with the treaties of amity 
subsisting between the two nations, and as tending- to prevent the 
resort of Britisli subjects to the United States for purposes of trade 
and industry. You conclude with informing me that upon these 
grounds her Majesty's government have felt bound to instruct you to 
remonstrate against such irregular proceedings, and to say that, in 
tbeir oi)inion, tlie authority of Congress is necessar}^ in order to justify 
the arbitrary arrest and imprisonment of British subjects. 

The facts in regard to the two persons named in your note are as 
follows : 

Communications from the regular police of the country to the 
Executive at Washington showed that disloj^'al persons in the State of 
Alabama were conducting treasonable correspondence with confeder- 
ates, British subjects and American citizens in Europe, aimed at the 
overthrow of the federal Union bj^ armed forces actually in the field, 
and besieging the .capital of the United States. A portion of this 
correspondence which was intercepted was addressed to the firm of 
Smith & I'atrick, brokers, long established and doing business in 
the city of New York. It appeared that this firm had a branch at 
Mobile; that tlie partner, Smith, is a disloyal citizen of the United 
States, and that he was in Europe when the treasonable papers were 
xsent from Mobile, addressed through the house of Smith cfe Patrick, 
in New York. On receiving this information William Patrick was 
arrested and committed into military custody at Fort Lafayette by an 
order of the Secretary of War of the United States, addressed to the 
police of the city of New York. These proceedings took place on the 
28th of August last. 

Representations were thereupon made to the Seeretarj^ of State by 
friends of Mr. Patrick to the effect that notwithstanding his associa- 
tions he was personally loyal to this government and that he was 
Ignorant of the treasonable nature of the correspondence which was 
being carried on through the mercantile house of which he was a mem- 
ber. Directions were thereupon given by the Secretaiy of State to a 
proper agent to inquire into the correctness of the facts thus pre- 
sented, and this inquiry resulted in the establishment of their truth. 
Mr. William Patrick was thereupon promptl}' released from custody by 
direction of the Secretarj^ of State. This release occurred on the thir- 
teenth day of September last. 

On the second day of September the superintendent of police in the 
city of New York informed the Secretary of State b}^ telegraph that 
he had under arrest J. C. Rahming, who had just arrived from Nas- 
sau, where he had attem^jted to induce the owners of the schooner 
"Arctic" to take cannon to Wilmington, in North Carolina, for the 
use of the rebels, and inquired what should he do with the prisoner. 
J. C. Rahming was thereupon committed into military custody at Fort 
Lafaj'ette under a mandate trom the Secretary of State. This com- 
mitment was made on the second day of September. On the 17th day 
of that month this prisoner, after due inquiry, Avas released from cus- 
tody on his executing a bond in the penalty of two thousand five hun- 
dred dollars, with a condition that he should thereafter bear true 
allegiance to the United States and do no act hostile or injurious to 
them while remaining under their protection. 

1 have to regret that after so long an official intercourse between the 
governments of the United States and Great Britain it should be nec- 
essary now to inform her Majesty's ministers that all executive pro- 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. Ill 

ceediiigs, whether of the Secretary of War or of the Secretary of State, 
are, unless disavowed or revoked b}' the President, proceedings of the 
President of the United States. 

Certainly it is not necessary to announce to the British government 
now that an insurrection, attended by civil and even social war, was 
existing in the United States when the proceedings which I have thus 
related took i)]ace. Bnt it does seem necessary to state, for the informa- 
tion of that government, that Congress is bj' tlie Constitution invested 
with no executive power or responsibility whatever; and, on the con- 
trar}^ tliat the President of the United States is, by the Constitution 
and laws, invested with the whole executive power of the government, 
and charged with the supreme direction of all municipal or ministerial 
civil agents, as well as of theAvhole land and naval forces of the Union; 
and that, invested with those ample powers, he is charged by the Con- 
stitution and laws with the absolute duty of supjiressing insurrection 
as well as of preventing and repelling invasion; and that for these 
purposes he constitutionally exercises the right of suspending the writ 
of haheas corpus whenever and wlieresoever and in whatsoever extent 
the public safety, endangered b}' treason or invasion in arms, in his 
judgment requires. 

The proceedings of which the British government complain were 
taken upon information conveyed to the President by legal police 
anthorities of the country, and they were not instituted until after he 
had suspended the great writ of freedom in just the extent that, in 
view of the perils of the State, he deemed necessary. For the exer- 
cise of that discretion he as well as his advisers, among whom are the 
Secretary of War and the Secretary of State, is responsible by law 
before the highest judicial tribunal of tlie republic, and amenable also 
to the judgment of his countrymen and the enlightened opinion of the 
civilized world. 

A candid admission contained in your letter relieves me of any neces- 
sity for showing that the two persons named therein were neither 
known nor supposed to be British subjects when the proceedings 
occurred, and that in every case subjects of her Majesty residing in 
the United States and under their protection are treated during the 
present troubles in the same manner and with no greater or less rigor 
than American citizens. 

The military prison which Avas used for the temporary detention of 
the suspected parties is a fort constructed and garrisoned for the pub- 
lic defence. The military officer charged with their custody has 
declined to pay obedience to the writ of habeas corpus, but the refusal 
was made in obedience to an express direction of the President, in the 
exercise of his functions as commander-in-chief of all the land and 
naval forces of the United States. Although it is not very important, 
it certainly is not entirely irrelevant to add that, so far as I am informed, 
no writ of habeas corpus was attempted to be served, or was even 
sued out or applied for in behalf of either of the persons named; 
although in a case not dissimilar the writ of habeas corpus was issued 
out in favor of another British subject and was disobeyed b}^ direction 
of the President. 

The British government have candidlj^ conceded, in the remonstrance 
before me, that even in this country, so remarkable for so long an 
enjoyment by its people of the highest immunities of personal free- 
dom, war, and especially civil war, cannot be conducted exclusively 
in the forms and with the dilatory remedies iDrovided b}^ municipal 
laws which are adequate to the preservation of public order in a time 
of peace. Treason always oxDerates, if possible, by surprise, and i)ru- 



112 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIlSr IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

clence and humanity therefore equally require that violence concocted 
in secret shall be prevented, if j^racticable, by unusual and vigorous 
precaution. I am fully aware of the inconveniences which result fi-om 
the practice of such precaution, embarrassing communities in social 
life and atfecting, perhaps, trade and interconrse with foreign nations. 
But the American people, after having tried in every way to avert 
civil war, have accepted it at last as a stern necessity. Their chief 
interest, while it lasts, is not the enjoyments of society or the profits of 
trade, but the saving of the national life. That life saved, all the other 
blessings which attach to it will speedily return, with greater assurance 
of continuance than ever before. The safetj' of the whole people has 
become, in the present emergency, the supreme law, and so long as 
the danger shall exist, all classes of societj^ equally, the denizen and the 
citizen, cheerfully acquiesce in the measures which that law prescribes. 

This government does not question the learning of the legal advisers 
of the British crown or the justice of the deference Avhich her ]Majes- 
ty's government pays to them. Nevertheless the British government 
will hardly expect that the President will accept their explanations of 
the Constitution of the United States, especially when the Constitution^ 
thus expounded, would leave upon him the sole executive responsi- 
bilitj^ of suppressing the existing insurrection, while it would transfer 
to Congress the most material and indispensable power to be emjiloyed 
for that purpose. Moreover, these explanations find no real support 
in the letter, much less in the spirit, of the Constitution itself. He 
must be allowed, therefore, to prefer and be governed by the views of 
our organic national law, which, while it will enable him to execute his 
great trust with complete success, receives the sanction of the highest 
authorities of our ow^n country and is sustained by the general con- 
sent of the people for whom alone that Constitution was established. 

I avail myself of this opportunity to offer to your lordship a renewed 
assurance of my very high consideration. 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

The Right Hon. Lord Lyons, &c. 



Mr. Seivard to Lord Lyons. 

Department of State, 

Washington, October 14, 1S61. 

My Lord: I have had the honor to receive your note of the 12th 
instant, in answer to mine of the 4th, relative to the carriage of pas- 
sengers and private letters in vessels of war of foreign powers to and 
from ports of the United States under blockade. 

In reply, I have the honor to acquaint you that no complaint has 
been made to this department that any British vessel had indulged in 
this practice; but insomuch as such a proceeding, if acquiesced in at 
all by this government, w^ould defeat the objects of the blockade, it 
was deemed advisable to address a circular upon the subject to the 
representatives here of the principal maritime powers. No objection 
is entertained to the transmission, through the channel of vessels of 
war of f riendl}^ powers, of any official correspondence with the agents 
of those powers in blockaded ports. 

I avail myself of this occasion to offer to your lordship a renewed 
assurance of my high consideration. 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

The Right Hon. Lord Lyons, &c., &c., &c. 



NEUTRALITY OB^ GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 118 
Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons. 

circular. 

Department of State, 

Washington., October 16, 1S61. 

My Lord: The judge of the court of the United States for the 
southern district of New York having recentlj^ decided, after ehibo- 
rate argument of counsel, that the law of blockade does not permit a 
vessel in a blockaded port to take on board cargo after the commence- 
ment of the blockade, with a view to avoid any future misunderstand- 
ing upon this subject, j'ou are informed that the law, as thus interpreted 
by the judge, will be expected to be strictly observed by all vessels 
in ports of insurgent States during their blockade by the naval forces 
of the United States. 

I avail myself of this occasion to offer to j^our lordship a renewed 
assurance of my high consideration. 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

The Right Hon. Lord Ly'ONS, &c., &c., (£c. 



Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward. 

AYashington, October 17, 1801. 

Sir : I beg to offer you my thanks for the note dated the 14th instant, 
which you liave done me the honor to write to me in answer to that 
dated the 12th instant, which I addressed to you on the subject of 
transmitting official correspondence by her Majesty's ships of war to 
the blockaded poils. 

It is with reluctance that I importune you further in this matter. 
But as I am very anxious to avoid all risk of misapprehending your 
wishes, I venture to ask you whether I am right in understanding 
that you have no objection to my sending to the blockaded ports by 
her Majesty's ships of war, not onlj^ British official correspondence 
with British authorities, but also the official correspondence of other 
powers friendly to the United States, with the agents of the same 
powers in the southern States. 

I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your most obe- 
dient, humble servant, 

LYONS. 

The Hon. Willia:\i II. Seward, d-c, d'c, &c. 



Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons. 

Department of State, 

Washington, October IS, 1861. 
My Lord: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note 
of yesterday, and to state, in reply, that it was intended in mj^ pre- 
vious communication, to which it refers, to say that official corre- 
spondence of other powers with the agents of those powers in block- 
aded ports, as well as that of British authorities with their agents, 
might be sent by British vessels of war. 
I am, ttc, 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

The Right Hon. Lord Lyons, &c., &c., dc 
S. Doc. 18 8 



114 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 
Lord Lijons to Mr. Seward. 

AVashixgton, October 23, 1861. 

Sir : Having received iuf ormatiou that a bag of despatches addressed 
by her Majesty's acting consul at Richmond, in Virginia, to her 
Majesty's consul at New York had been taken from a gentleman of 
the name of Crosse, at Baltimore, and sent to General Dix, I directed 
Mr. Bernal, her Majesty's consul at the latter place, to make inquiries 
of the general on the subject. You will perceive by the enclosed 
copy of a despatch from Mr. Bernal that the general referred him to 
you. I therefore do myself the honor to ask you to be so kind as to 
favor me with such information as it seems proper that I shouhl receive 
with regard to the seizure of the despatches in question. 

I have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your most 
obedient, humble servant, 

LYONS. 



Mr. Bernal to Lord Lyorm. 

British Consulate, 

Baltimore, October 22, 1861. 

My Lord: In pursuance of the instructions in your lordship's 
despatch of the 19th (received this morning) having reference to the 
reported seizure of a bag of despatches, I proceeded to Fort McIIenry, 
wiiere I had an interview with General Dix. I asSed him to be good 
enough to inform me if it was true that. on or about the lOth instant 
a bag of despatches, addressed to her Majesty's consul in New York 
by her Majestj^'s acting consul at Richmond, was taken away from 
Mr. Thomas Crosse, a British subject, by the provost marshal in this 
city, and sent to him. General Dix replied very briefly that he must 
decline giving me any information, and referred me to Mr. Seward. 
In order that there should be no mistake, I repeated my question, 
and received the same answer. 
I have, tfec, 

F. BERNAL. 



Mr. Seirard to Lord Lijon.s. 

Department of State, 

Washington, October 3^, 1861. 

My Lord : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note 
of yesterday, requesting information in regard to a bag supposed to 
contain despatches from the acting British consul at Richmond, 
addressed to Mr. Archibald, the British consul at New York, which 
bag was taken from a man named Cross by the provost marshal of 
Baltimore. 

In reply I have the honor to inform you that, having received infor- 
mation from General Dix that such a bag had been found concealed 
in the trunk of a man of that name — a spy of the insurgents, who 
escaped before he could be arrested — I directed the general to forward 
it hither. On its arrival, although it had a label attached to it 
addressed to Mr. Archibald, and the words on her Britannic Majestj^'s 
service, there was nothing to identify it as having been forwarded by 
the British vice-consul at Richmond'. This circumstance, in connex- 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 115 

ion with those under wliich the bag' was brought throngli the military 
lines of tlie United States, naturally occasioned doubts as to its con- 
taining official correspondence. I consequently directed the bag to be 
opened, when it proved to contain not a single communication for 
Mr. Archibald, or for any other officer of the British government on 
this continent. It did contain a few apparently official letters to 
functionaries of the British government at London. These were 
IH-omptl}' forwarded, as received, to Mr. Adams, with directions to 
cause them to be delivered to their address. 

The other contents of the bag are, and will be, retained here. It is 
unnecessai-y to specify their character. I will only add that they are 
such as no consul, or acting consul, of a foreign government has a 
riglit to forward in any way from a place in rebellion against this 
government. 

I avail myself of this occasion to offer to your lordship a renewed 
assurance of my verv high consideration. 

WlLLIA.^l II. SEWARD. 

To Lord Lyons. 



Lord Lyoii^ to J[r. Seirord. 

Washington, Octoher -Av, isoi. 

Sir: Her Majesty's government have had under their consideration 
the note which I had the honor to address to you on the 22d ultimo, 
with the despatch from Mr. Consul Archibald which accompanied it. 

Her Majesty's government have learned with much surprise, from 
those papers, the cruel treatment to which the nine British seamen 
who were imprisoned in Fort Lafaj^ette were subjected by the L^nited 
States authorities. Her Majesty's gov^ernment are unable to com- 
prehend the grounds on which persons, who were accused of no offence, 
w^ere confined in irons and treated as criminals; and although it has 
been satisfactory to them to learn, from the answer which you did 
me the honor to make to my representations on the subject, that 
orders were given for the release of these men, j^et her Majesty's gov- 
ernment cannot but consider that some amends are due to them for the 
sufferings to wiiich they were thus causelessly exposed. Her Majes- 
ty's government have accordingly instructed me to bring the matter 
again to the notice of tlie government of the LTnited States, and to 
express their hope that due compensation may be awarded to the suf- 
ferers. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest consideration, sir, your 
most obedient, humble servant, 

LYONS. 



ilfr. Seivard to Mr. Ad<())is. 

No. 122.] Department of State, 

Washington, November 11, 1861. 
Sir: The case in regard to pirates engaged by the insurgents in 
this countr}^ I^racticallj^ stands thus: every naval power, and every 
commercial ijower except one, practically excludes them from their 
ports, except in distress, or for a visit of an}^ kind longer than twenty- 
four hours, and from supplies, except of coals, for twentj'-four houi-s' 
consumption. 



116 NEUTRALITY OF GJIEAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

Great Britain, as we are given to understand by the answer of Earl 
Russell, allows these pirates to visit her jDorts and stay at their own 
pleasure, receiving supplies without restriction. 

We find it difficult to believe that tlie government ot Great Britain 
has constituted this exception with full delilieration. I intimated in 
a preceding despatch, No. 112, a hope that the subject might be recon- 
sidered before it should be necessary for us to consider what remedies 
we can adopt to prevent the evils which must result to our commerce 
from the policy thus indicated by Great Britain. I have consulted on 
the subject with Lord Lyons, and he may perhaps communicate with 
his government thereupon. Meantime I am directed by the Presi- 
dent to instruct you to recall the attention of her Majesty's govern- 
ment to the question, under the influences of a spirit of peace and 
friendship, and with a desire to preserve what remains of a commerce 
mutually important to both countries. 
I am, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM 11. SEWARD. 

Charles Francis Adams, Esq., ttr., d'c, &e. 



CASE OF THE PERTHSHIRE. 

Lord Lyons to Mr. Seward. 

British Legation, 
Washin<jion,D. C, Octoher 11, 1861. 

Sir: I have the honor to transmit to you a cop}^ of a memorial ad- 
dressed to Earl Russell, lier Majesty's principal secretary of state for 
foreign affairs, by Mr. William Gray, owner of the British ship "Perth- 
shire," which appears to have been interfered with by United States 
ships-of-war. I am directed by Lord Russell to ask the government 
of the United States for an explanation. 

1 have the honor to be, with high consideration, sir, your most obe- 
dient, humble servant. 



Hon. W. II. Seward, dc, c&c, &c. 



LYONS. 



il/r. Gray to Earl EusseJl. 

Hartlepool, ^l?/.(//r.s/! 38, 1861. 

My Lord: I take the liberty of directing youi- lordship's attention, 
in your official capacity as secretary of state for foreign affairs, to the 
following facts connected with tlie seizure and detention by a United 
States steamship of tlie ship "Perthshire," of the port of Hartlepool, 
whilst engaged in lawful commerce upon the high seas, and to request 
that your lordship will, through the British ambassador at Washing- 
ton, bring the case before the government of the L^nited States, and 
demand compensation for the loss I have sustained by the detention 
of my ship, and which loss I estimate at the sum of two hundred 
pounds sterling, besides rendering void all insurances effected upon 
the ship, her cargo, and freight (of the gross value of forty thousand 
pounds sterlings) by comi^elling the ship to deviate from her voyage. 

The "Perthshire," a ship of SIO tons register, was chartered by a 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 117 

niercliant in Liverpool, in March last, to iDroceed in ballast from 
Grimsby to Pensacola, and there load a cargo of timber for the United 
Kingdom; the charterer, however, having the option, through his 
agent at Pensacola, of ordering the ship to Mobile to load cotton for 
Liverpool at a lump sum of £2,300. 

The ship sailed from Grimsby in March hist, and on the 13th of Maj* 
Avas making for the harbor of Pensacola, when she was ordered to 
heave to bythe commander of the United States steamship "Niagara." 
She was boarded bj^ Lieutenant Brown, boarding' officer, who informed 
Captain Gates, of the "Perthshire," that Pensacola was blockaded, 
and indorsed the vessel's register as follows: 

" I>oarded by the United States squadron May 13, 1861, and warned 
not to enter the harbor of Pensacola. 

"GEORGE BROWN, 
^^Lieaf., United States Navy, Boarding Officer.'' 



In reply to the inquiry of Gaptain Gates, the lieutenant informed him 
that Mobile was not blockaded. The ship then proceeded to Mobile, 
where she arrived on the 1-iXh May. Mobile was not blockaded until 
May 26. At Mobile the "Perthshire" loaded a cargo of cotton for 
Liverpool and proceeded to sea on May 31. Gutside the port she was 
again l)oarded by the boarding officer of the United States steamship 
"Niagara," who examined his [her] clearances, expressed himself 
satisfied with them, and said the ship might proceed on her voj^age. 
She proceeded with light and variable winds until the Oth of June, 
when she was boarded by the boarding officer of the ITnites States 
ship " Massachusetts," who, after communicating with his ship, sent, 
a prize crew of 2!) men and 2 officers on board the " Perthshire," who 
took possession of the ship and all the captain's papers, hauled down 
the British flag and hoisted the United States flag. They altered the 
course of the ship and took her back towards Pensacola, off which 
place, on the 12th of June, after sailing about 200 miles back, they 
fell in with the United States squadron, the commander of which 
ordered the "Perthshire's" release, without, however, making anj^ 
compensation for the detention to which she had been subjected, nor 
for the ship's stores, consisting of tea, coffee, and sugar, used by the 
prize crew whilst on board the " Perthshire." 

Gn the ship being released, the captain's papers were returned to 
him, and his clearance indorsed as follows: 

"Boarded June '.), 1861, by the United States steamship ' Massa- 
chusetts,' detained under note 159, page 330, Vattel's LaAvof Nations; 
liberated by comnmnding officer of the Gulf squadron June 12, 1861." 

This indorsement w'as without any signature. 

A paper was given to the captain of the " Perthshire," on which 
was written, also without signature, as follows: 

" Vattel's Law of Nations. Sir Walter Scott's Gpinion. Note 159, 
page 339, article 3. Things to be proved: 

"1. The existence of a blockade. 

"2. The knowiedge of the party supposed to have offended. 

"3. Some act of violation." 

Such, my lord, is a plain, unvarnished statement of the facts con- 
nected with this extraordinary seizure and detention. The ship having 
reached her destination safely prevents a discussion as to liability in 
the event of loss after the deviation in the voyage, but which the 



118 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

Liverpool uuderwriters saj' they would have been exempted from had 
such taken place. 

The ground upon which I base my claim for £200 is as follows: The 
ship had been nine days at sea wlien she was seized. She was taken 
back almost to tlie place from which she first started, and three days 
after that (or twelve days from leaving Mobile) she was as far from 
Liverpool as on the 31st of May, when she sailed from Mobile. Her 
freight was about £'o50 per month, and twelve days at that rate is 
about the sum I claim. 

The case of the "Perthshire,''' my lord, has been commented upon 
by all the leading journals in Great Britain, and without exception 
they pronounce it a case in which our government ought to make a 
demand for damages. I venture to hope, therefore, that your lord- 
ship will take such steps with regard to this matter as will prevent a 
repetition of imjjroper interference with British ships, and at the same 
time obtain for me the reasonable and fair compensation 1 claim. 
I have, &c., 

WILLIAM GRAY, 
Owner of ilie ship '" Pertlishire." 

The Right Hon. Earl Russell, d'c, d-c, d-c. 



Mr. Sewitrd fo Mr. WeUea. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, 

Wa.shiiujfori, Ocfoher 10, ISill. 
Sir: I transmit lierewith a copy of a note from the British minister 
of the 11th instant, and of its accompaniment, respecting an alleged 
interference with the British ship "Perthshire" b}' vessels of the 
L^nited States blockading squadron. 

I will thank you to furnish me with such information upon the sub- 
ject as will enable me to reply to the note of Lord Lyons. 
I have the honoi- to be, sir, your obedient servant, 

WILLIAM 11. SEAVARD. 
Hon. Gideon Welles, 

Secrefanj offlie Xart/. 



Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons. 

Department of State, 

Washington, October 19, 1861. 
My Lord : I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your note 
of the 11th instant, accompanied by a copy of a memorial addressed 
to her ^Majesty's principal secretary of state for foreign affairs by Mr. 
William Gray, owner of the British ship Perthsliire, alleged to have 
been interfered with b}^ United States ships-of-war. 

A copy of those papers has been transmitted to the Secretary of the 
Navy with a view to a proper investigation of the matter. When the 
rei)ly of that officer shall have been received I shall lose no time in 
communicating to your lordship the result of the investigation. 
Accept, my lord, the assurance of my high consideration. 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

The Right Hon. Lord Lyons, dr., dc, dc. 



NEUTRALITY OF GRP^AT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 119 

2Ir. Welles lo Mr. Seivard. 

Navy Department, October 24, 1861. 
Sir: I have the houor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 
the lOth instant and enclosures, and to transmit herewith a copy of a 
report of Captain William W. McKean, commanding United States 
ship Niagara, and a copy of a report of Commander Melancton Smith, 
which contain such information as the department ijossesses in rela- 
tion to the sei/Aire of the British shii^ " Perthshire " by the United 
States steamer Massachusetts, and her subsequent release by order of 
Captain McKean. 

I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, 

GIDEON WELLES. 

Hon. William IL Seward, 

Secretary of State. 



Captain. McKean to Commodore Mercine. 

United States Steamer Niagara, 
Off Soutli west Pass of ^[Ississippi, Septemljer 19, 1861. 

Sir: Your communication of the 17th instant, with the accompany- 
ing document, was received on the 18th instant. 

The English ship "Perthshire," Captain James Gates, left the har- 
bor of Mobile on the 30th of June, 1801, and was boarded by Lieu- 
tenant Spicer, from this ship, and passed by my order, the fifteen 
days allowed by the proclamation of the President of the United 
States for neutral vessels to depart not having expired. 

I am under the impression that no indorsement was made upon her 
register, as I did not consider it necessary. 

I arrived off Fort Pickens in the Niagara early on tlie morning of 
the 12th of June, 1861. A large ship, which proved to be the " Perth- 
shire," had just anchored. 

Immediately after the Niagara had come to anchor. Commander M. 
Smith, commanding the United States steamer Massachusetts, came 
on board and reported having captured the Perthshire in latitude 27° 
27' and longitude 85° 31'. 

I stated to Commander Smith that the Perthshire had left Mobile 
within the time allowed by the President's proclamation; that I con- 
sidered the capture illegal, as, by order of the department, no neutral 
vessel not having on board contraband of war was to be detained or 
captured unless attempting to leave or enter a blockaded port after 
the notitieation of blockade had been indorsed on her register. I 
therefore directed him to release the "Perthshire," and to replace 
such provisions and stores as might have been used by the prize crew. 

She was accordingly released and immediately got under way, Com- 
mander Smith having reported to me that he had not only replaced 
such provisions as had been used but had also supplied her with water. 

I subsequently received from Captain Adams the report of Com- 
mander Smith, a copy of which is herewitli submitted. It bears no 
date. 

As I was in hourl3^exj)ectation of your arrival from Kej' West I had 



120 NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 

fully intended reporting the circumstances to you, but it escaped m^' 
memory. ' 

I am, sir, j^our obedient servant, 

WM. W. McKEAN, Capfaiu. 
Flag Officer William Mervine, 

Commanding Gulf Blockading Squadron, 

United Slates Steam Frigate " Colorado.''^ 



Commander Sin itli to commanding officer Gulf Squadron. 

U. S. Steamer Massachusetts, 

Off Pensacola, Florida. 
Sir: I liave to report that on the 0th instant, in latitude ,27° 27' and 
longitude 85° ol', I boarded and seized as a prize the English ship 
"Perthshire," from Mobile, bound to Liverpool, with a cargo of 2,240 
bales of cotton, said ship having been boarded l)y one of the blockad- 
ing fleet off Pensacola ^lay loth, and warned not to enter the harbor. 
Two officers and twenty-nine men were placed on board the prize, 
and Mr. Wm. R. Clark, acting master, was directed to proceed with 
all possible despatch and report to the senior commanding officer of 
the Gulf squadron for instructions. 

In addition to the above, I boarded ship Janico from Mobile, ship 
Carl and bark Mary from New Orleans, all loaded with cotton, and 
with registers indorsed; also ship Bramley Moore, from New Orleans, 
register not indorsed, but allowed her to proceed upon her voyage, as 
the time granted vessels to clear, according to the notification of 
blockade, had not expired. 

Very respectfully, MELANCTON SMITH, 

Commander. 
The Commanding Officer, 

Gulf Squadron, Pensacola. 

[Indorsement by Captain Adams. | 

June 10, 1861. 
At the time the Perthshire was boarded from this ship and ordered 
off from Pensacola there was no blockade of Mobile or the Mississippi 
river. 

H. A. ADAMS, 
Captain U. S. Frigate '''Sahine.'' 



Mr. Seward to Lord Lyons. 

Department of State, 

Washington, October 2^, 1S61. 
My Lord: Your letter of the 11th of October last, presenting the 
claim of Mr. William Gray, owner of the British ship "Perthshire," 
for damages incurred by the detention of that vessel by the blockad- 
ing squadron of the LTnited States, was referred by me to the Secretarj' 
of the Navy for information upon the subject. 

I have now received tlie answer of the Secretary of the Navy there- 
uj)on, which fails to show me that the detention of the Perthshire by 



NEUTRALITY OF GREAT BRITAIN IN THE CIVIL WAR. 121 

Commander Sraitli, commanding the United States steamer Massa- 
chnsetts, was warranted by law or by the President's proclamation 
instituting the blockade, although I am satisfied that that oificer acted 
under a misapprehension of his duties, and not from any improper 
motive. It will belong to Congress to appropriate the sum of two 
hundred pounds, claimed by Gray, which sum seems to me not an 
unreasonable one. The President will ask Congress Tor that appro- 
priation as soon as they shall meet, and he will direct that such 
instructions shall be given to Commander Smith as will caution him 
against a repetition of the errors of which you have complained. 

I avail myself of this opportunity to renew^ to your lordship the 
assurance of my high consideration. 

WILLIAM II. SEWARD. 

The Right lion. Lord Lyons, c£c., dr., dc. 



O 



\j^^^ V "^ 



